Court Opinion

ID: 9483808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:31:56.381138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:50.661861
License: Public Domain

GRAHAM, District Judge,
dissenting.
Defendant has raised as error on appeal the district court’s failure to group all of the counts of conviction for purposes of sentencing pursuant to § 3D1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”). A majority of the panel has agreed that one of the resisting counts must be grouped with the theft counts. For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of stealing mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1708, one count of possession of keys to steal mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1704 and one count of illegal possession of agricultural coupons under 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b). Defendant *1386was convicted by a jury of two counts of resisting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111, each involving a separate officer. The district court combined the six theft-related offenses into one group, and treated each resisting count as a separate group, resulting in a total of three groups. Defendant argues that the two resisting offenses must be grouped with the theft offenses due to the fact that the theft offense level, which was enhanced two points for reckless endangerment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, was duplicative of the resisting and impeding offense level, which was enhanced with the specific offense characteristic of the possession and threatened use of a dangerous weapon.1
The grouping of closely related counts under the Guidelines is governed by § 3D1.2(a) through (d). Section 3D1.2 requires the court to group closely related counts, i.e. counts involving substantially the same harm. United States v. Kleinebreil, 966 F.2d 945, 954 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549, 554 (9th Cir.1991). Each subsection must be considered to determine if the counts satisfy any of the criteria for grouping. United States v. Wilson, 920 F.2d 1290, 1293-1294 (6th Cir.1990). In the instant case, subsections (a) and (b) do not apply, because the three groups involved separate victims. Subsection (d) does not apply because the resisting offenses are specifically excluded from the grouping process under that subsection.
Thus, the issue in this case is whether grouping is required under subsection (c), which provides for grouping “[w]hen one of the counts embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in, or other adjustment to the guideline applicable to another of the counts.” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). This subsection targets "conduct” embodied in "one of the counts” that is treated as a “specific offense characteristic” in another count. United States v. Astorri, 923 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1991). Specific offense characteristics are types of misconduct that typically occur in the course of the offense for which the defendant was convicted and which aggravate the offense. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 554. Offenses may be grouped only if each involved substantially the same harm. Id.
The majority has concluded that one of the resisting counts must be grouped with the theft group, although the majority acknowledges that under Application Note 5 to § 3D1.2(c), the second resisting count is not subject to grouping. I would hold that the trial court properly treated these counts as three separate groups.
The analysis under subsection (c) requires comparing “one of the counts” with the specific offense characteristics and adjustments applicable to other counts. Subsection (c) does not expressly require that adjustments to the first count also be compared with the adjustments applicable to other counts. Otherwise, subsection (c) would have been drafted to require grouping when “one of the counts or any adjustment to that count” is treated as a specific offense characteristic of or adjustment to another count. Since the Guidelines are interpreted pursuant to the standard rules *1387of statutory construction, courts must follow the clear, unambiguous language of Guidelines provisions. United States v. Lewis, 900 F.2d 877, 881 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 840, 111 S.Ct. 117, 112 L.Ed.2d 86 (1990). Under these principles, it should be assumed that the omission of that language was deliberate. Cf. Lewis, 900 F.2d at 881 (exceptions not specifically mentioned are excluded). However, even if it is assumed that subsection (c) requires a comparison of the first count plus adjustments against the second count plus adjustments, the adjustments in this case address distinct concerns, and the application of both would not result in double counting.
The probation officer applied the general theft guideline found in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 to the theft count group. The theft group was enhanced with the Chapter Three adjustment of reckless endangerment found in U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. That provision allows the addition of two points where the defendant “recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.” The probation officer applied the guideline for obstructing or impeding officers found in U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 to the resisting counts. The specific offense characteristic found in U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b)(l) provides for a three-point enhancement where defendant’s conduct resulted in physical contact or where defendant possessed and threatened the use of a dangerous weapon.
The conduct underlying the theft counts involves different harms than those addressed by the resisting counts. The theft offenses involved the theft of mail, the illegal possession of agricultural coupons and the illegal possession of mail keys. The purpose behind the theft offenses is the protection of property. Factually, these offenses were technically completed before the acts constituting the resisting offenses were commenced.
The purpose behind the offense provided by 18 U.S.C. § 111 is the protection of both federal officers and federal functions. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 1261, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975). One aim behind § 111 is to prevent interference with federal functions or hindrance to the execution of official duties. Ladner, 358 U.S. at 175-176, 79 S.Ct. at 213; United States v. Jim, 865 F.2d 211, 214 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 827, 110 S.Ct. 93, 107 L.Ed.2d 58 (1989). The other concern behind the enactment of § 111 was the safety of federal officers. Feola, 420 U.S. at 681, 95 S.Ct. at 1262. Under 2A2.4, the possession and threatened use of a dangerous weapon is a specific offense characteristic which enhances the penalty. The theft guideline under § 2B1.1 and its specific offense characteristics bear no relationship to and are not embodied in the resisting and impeding guideline under § 2A2.4 and its specific offense characteristic.
The specific offense characteristic under § 2A2.4(b)(l) does not necessarily address the same harm or embody the same conduct as the general § 3C1.2 adjustment for reckless endangerment applied to the theft counts. Section 3C1.2 was added to the Guidelines on November 1, 1990, thereby codifying an adjustment for reckless endangerment during flight which some courts had been imposing as an obstruction of justice adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. See United States v. Bell, 953 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir.1992). However, in United States v. Christoffel, 952 F.2d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1700, 118 L.Ed.2d 410 (1992), where the defendant was sentenced prior to the effective date of § 3C1.2, the court struck down the use of § 3C1.1 to enhance the sentence where the defendant endangered the lives of agents while fleeing in his vehicle. The court stated, Id., that fleeing from arrest in itself is not covered by § 3C1.1, and that “whether a defendant recklessly endangered others while fleeing bears no logical relation to whether that defendant was obstructing the law enforcement officers who were attempting to apprehend him.”
I agree with the reasoning in Christoffel. The reckless endangerment adjustment addresses conduct where the defendant recklessly creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to any person, includ*1388ing persons who are not law enforcement officers, which happens to occur while defendant is fleeing a law enforcement officer. The focus of the adjustment is on the threat to personal safety to which other persons are exposed during the flight, not the flight or act of resisting arrest itself.
The specific offense characteristic in § 2A2.4(b)(l) applies where defendant’s conduct resulted in physical contact or where defendant possessed and threatened the use of a dangerous weapon. This characteristic focuses on the nature of the conduct comprising the offense of resisting and furthers the dual purpose behind §111. This enhancement takes into account not only the threat to the safety of the officers which may be posed by physical contact or the use of a dangerous weapon, but also the added impediment to the execution of official duties which may be posed by physical contact or the threatened use of a dangerous weapon. Unlike the § 3C1.2 adjustment, this characteristic does not require that the threatened use of a dangerous weapon create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. The characteristic may also be satisfied by conduct involving physical contact, which is not an element of the § 3C1.2 adjustment. This characteristic focuses on and is limited to the conduct of defendant which constitutes the resisting offense, that is, conduct directed toward the officers who are being impeded or resisted, and does not take into account defendant’s acts against persons who are not officers.
Thus, the harm addressed by the § 3C1.2 adjustment does not fully embody the harm addressed by the § 2A2.4(b)(l) offense characteristic, and vice versa. Moreover, the application of both those factors in this case was based upon distinct conduct on the part of defendant. The § 3C1.2 adjustment was based upon defendant’s high speed flight in her car which endangered not only the agents, but also the persons in defendant’s neighborhood who were placed at risk by defendant’s erratic driving. The § 2A2.4 characteristic was based upon the separate conduct of the threatened use of defendant’s car as a dangerous weapon against Agents Pearce and Fallis at the post office. While the probation officer did not specifically rely on the physical contact prong, the evidence of defendant’s physical struggles with Agent Pearce at the post office and with Agent Fallis at the driveway of defendant’s residence would also justify the application of this offense characteristic. The use of both these enhancements does not result in punishing the same conduct twice.
The majority states that since the defendant’s conduct constituted a single fluid action, all of the counts should be grouped. However, the fact that conduct underlying different counts occurred during the same act or course of conduct does not necessarily mandate grouping where the defendant’s conduct was comprised of several different acts which resulted in separate harms to separate victims. See, e.g., United States v. Toler, 901 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir.1990). Similarly, the same factor may give rise to two separate departures. See, United States v. Campbell, 967 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.1992). Although defendant’s conduct occurred over a relatively short period of time, defendant committed several distinct acts which implicated separate harms. If the offenses are grouped, so that in effect only the § 3C1.2 adjustment is applied, the harms which are outside the scope of that adjustment will not be" addressed in the sentencing calculations. I would conclude that grouping of these counts is not required.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.2

. Defendant does not argue that she could not be convicted and sentenced on both resisting counts. As Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958) and its progeny indicate, a defendant may be sentenced separately for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 111 involving separate officers so long as the injuries to the officers were not caused by a single act. The authorities on this point indicate that defendant's struggles with Inspector Pearce in the lobby and parking lot of the post office and her near collision, car chase and struggles with Inspector Fallís would be considered separate acts meriting separate treatment. See e.g., United States v. Rivera Ramos, 856 F.2d 420 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 837, 110 S.Ct. 118, 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989); United States v. Wesley, 798 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir.1986) (separate sentencing where defendant hit one guard, then moments later hit another); United States v. Hodges, 436 F.2d 676 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 908, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 684 (1971); United States v. Montanaro, 362 F.2d 527 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 920, 87 S.Ct. 233, 17 L.Ed.2d 144 (1966) (separate sentences upheld where defendant assaulted more than one person with a car). The gist of defendant’s argument is that both resisting offenses must be grouped with the theft offenses, not that the resisting offenses must be grouped with each other.

. I agree with the majority’s decision that defendant's other assignment of error, in which defendant argues that the court erred in applying the three-point enhancement under § 2A2.4(b)(l) since she was not charged in the indictment with assault, is not well taken.