Opinion ID: 3017000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of the Guidelines and the Virgin Islands

Text: Criminal Code in the District Court The question whether, in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, sentences for local crimes should be determined under the 4 penalty provisions of the Virgin Islands Code or the Guidelines was answered by this Court in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 866 F.2d 610 (1989). Dowling involved a sentencing before the District Court of the Virgin Islands, as it existed before the 1993 restriction on its jurisdiction, discussed below. This Court noted that “[u]nlike United States District Courts, the District Court of the Virgin Islands adjudicates cases charging violations of both federal and local law” and that “many offenses against the Virgin Islands Code may be prosecuted in either the District Court or the Territorial Court.” Id. at 613. Reasoning that “if the Guidelines must be used in one court but not in the other, the prosecutor would have the option of choosing what range of punishment could be imposed for the particular crime” and that this would be an anomalous result, we held that “the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to violations of the Virgin Islands criminal code committed in areas within the jurisdiction of the Virgin Islands government.” Id. at 613-15. Nisbett argues that the holding of the case was directly tied to the jurisdictional framework of the District Court of the Virgin Islands as it existed at that time, and that subsequent changes in 5 that framework render its holding without force. Before 1994, the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands shared concurrent jurisdiction over local (Virgin Islands) crimes. See Parrott v. Gov’t of V.I., 230 F.3d 615, 622 (3d Cir. 2000). However, by a 1993 act of the Virgin Islands legislature, the District Court was divested of original jurisdiction over local crimes. Id. “The one limitation on this general separation of jurisdiction for local criminal matters is when a charged local crime relates to federal crimes as well. In that instance, the District Court retains concurrent jurisdiction.” Id. at 622 n.10. Nisbett submits that the change in jurisdiction somehow transformed the District Court of the Virgin Islands into a District Court of the United States. He seizes on language in Parrott discussing the effects of the 1984 amendments to the Virgin Islands Organic Act, stating that “[b]y virtue of these amendments, the District Court now possesses the jurisdiction of a ‘District Court of the United States.’” See Parrott, 230 F.3d at 619. He also reads the statement in Dowling that “[w]e are persuaded that Congress intended the Act to regulate sentencing in Article III courts” to mean that, because the Virgin Islands district court is not an Article 6 III court, the Guidelines do not apply in it. See Dowling, at 866 F.2d at 614. Thus, he reasons, now that it is a U.S. district court, it is an Article III court and the Guidelines must apply to everything in that court. However, both premises of his argument are incorrect. The amendments to the Organic Act that caused the Parrott Court to liken the Virgin Islands court to a U.S. district court took place in 1984, not in 1993, and thus predated Dowling, and therefore the idea that the 1993 jurisdictional change fundamentally alters Dowling’s analysis is flawed. See Parrott, 230 F.3d at 619. Secondly, the Dowling Court’s reference to Article III courts was made to show why the Guidelines could not be applied in Territorial Court, in order to explain why they could not be applied to local crimes in federal court (because of the inconsistency referred to above). Accordingly, in United States v. Simmonds, which was decided after the 1994 change in jurisdiction on facts that took place after 1994, this Court cited Dowling for the proposition that “the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply with respect to territorial criminal offenses tried in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.” 235 F.3d 826, 835 (2000). Thus, under the reasoning detailed 7 above and the directly applicable binding precedent of Simmonds, this Court must reject Nisbett’s argument with respect to the application of the Guidelines to the Virgin Islands offense, as it took place within the Virgin Islands.