Court Opinion

ID: 9490564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:47:24.631768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:10.642099
License: Public Domain

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the Court’s opinion:
I concur in Judge Owen’s opinion for the Court, affirming appellant’s 12 month sentence for involuntary manslaughter, but add a brief explanation as to why the “criminal negligence” guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.4(a)(l), is applicable and why the recklessness, found by the District Court, may be used only to select a sentencing point within the “criminal negligence” guideline range and not as “relevant conduct,” id. § 1B1.3, which would permit use of the “reckless conduct” guideline, id. § 2A1.4(a)(2).
Though the statute makes no distinction between involuntary manslaughter by criminally negligent conduct and involuntary manslaughter by reckless conduct, the Government elected to file an information charging McHugh with “criminal negligence.” The information narrowed the charged offense, and once McHugh pled guilty to counts charging “criminal negligence,” 1 that became the “offense conduct” that the Guidelines instruct is to be used to determine the applicable sentencing guideline.2 Where the offense conduct is involuntary manslaughter by conduct that is “criminally negligent,” the appropriate guideline is section 2A1.4(a)(l), which specifies a base offense level of 10. Had the plea and resulting conviction been to involuntary manslaughter by conduct that is “reckless,” the appropriate guideline would have been section 2A1.4(a)(2), which specifies a base offense level of 14.
However, since section 2A1.4 includes more than one base offense level, attention must be given to the “relevant conduct” guideline, which instructs that
[T]he base offense level where the guideline specifies more than one base offense level, ... shall be determined on the basis of the following:
(1)(A) all acts and omissions committed ... by the defendant....
Id. § lB1.3(a)(l)(A).
It is arguable that the “reckless conduct” found by the District Court is “relevant conduct,” warranting application of the “reckless conduct” guideline. I agree with the Court’s implicit assumption, however, that the applicable guideline remains the “negligent conduct” guideline. Section lB1.3(a)(l)(A) permits selection of an enhanced guideline for “acts” committed by the defendant. In this case, no “act” of the defendant distinguishes criminally negligent conduct from reckless conduct. The distinction arises only from an enhanced degree of mens rea, the state of mind with which the defendant acted. We have never regarded mens rea as an “act” of the defendant for purposes of the relevant conduct guideline, nor should we. The natural meaning of “act” connotes conduct, and the meaning of the guideline should not be strained to include state of mind. Indeed, we have previously ruled that where a defendant’s acts are relevant conduct, justifying enhancement of an offense level, a defendant cannot avoid such enhancement on the ground that he lacked mens rea as to the *159enhancing conduct. See United States v. Obi 947 F.2d 1031, 1032 (2d Cir.1991). Similarly, where, as here, no additional acts occurred, a relevant conduct enhancement should not be permitted because of the presence of mens rea.
I also agree that, though we generally require a sentencing judge to say that the same sentence would have been given under either of two overlapping guidelines before we will sustain a sentence imposed under the higher, incorrectly selected guideline, see United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 934 (2d Cir.1988), a remand is not necessary in this case since Judge Pooler’s sentencing remarks leave no doubt that she would reimpose a 12 month sentence, even using the “criminal negligence” guideline. If by any chance we have assumed too much in this regard, she may so advise the parties, in which event a motion to recall our mandate would be warranted.
For these reasons, I concur in Judge Owen’s opinion.

. The two counts, one for each victim, charged that "Michael T. McHugh, did kill [the victim] in the commission, without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which produced death by criminal negligence....”

. The Guidelines instruct as follow:
Determine the offense guideline section in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) most applicable to the offense of conviction (i.e., the offense conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted.)
U.S.S.G. § lB1.2(a) (emphasis added).