Opinion ID: 797777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Upward Adjustment for Official Victim under the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 38 Wood argues second that the district court violated the ex post facto clause by applying a 6-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c). 5 Although Wood objected to the application of section 3A1.2(c), he did so on grounds other than the ex post facto clause and he does not raise those grounds on this appeal. Accordingly, our review of this alleged error is for plain error only. 6 See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Syme, 276 F.3d 131, 158 (3d Cir.2002). 39 The official victim enhancement relied on by the district court during Wood's January 5, 2006 sentencing was amended, effective November 1, 2004. Wood, however, engaged in the conduct charged in the indictment on January 10, 2004, approximately 10 months before the amendment became effective. Prior to the amendment, Wood would have been subject to a 3 rather than 6 level enhancement under the official victim guideline provision. 7 See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b) (2002). We realize that, as a general rule, sentencing courts must apply the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the crime. United States v. Kopp, 951 F.2d 521, 526 (3d Cir.1991), superseded in part on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Corrado, 53 F.3d 620 (3d Cir.1995). But where, as here, such retroactivity results in harsher penalties, Ex Post Facto Clause problems arise, and courts must apply the earlier version. Id. ; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b) (If the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.); United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550, 566 (3d Cir.1994) ([C]hanges in sentencing guidelines that enhance the penalty offend the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.). 40 In this case, the government concedes that all three prongs of plain error review have been met, i.e., that the district court erred in applying the 2004, rather than the 2002, official victim enhancement, the error was clear and obvious, and Wood's substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203, 207 (3d Cir.2001) (holding that under plain error review an error in application of the Guidelines that results in use of a higher sentencing range should be presumed to affect the defendant's substantial rights). Accordingly, we will vacate Wood's sentence and remand the case to the district court with instructions to rely on the 2002, rather than the 2004, official victim enhancement for purposes of sentencing. Resentencing should be in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir.2006); see also United States v. Colon, 474 F.3d 95, 100 (3d Cir.2007).