Court Opinion

ID: 9492741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:49:37.670422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:28.576518
License: Public Domain

*191GARTH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
This appeal seeks an answer to the question — when is a prison Cook Supervisor not a prison Corrections Officer? My answer to that question, in the present context, differs dramatically from the majority’s answer — my answer is never!
The majority’s opinion holds that, pursuant to the definition set forth by an earlier panel of this court, United States v. Walker, 149 F.3d 238 (3d Cir.1998) (“Walker I”), Cook Supervisor Wadeck, who was assaulted by the appellant Walker, neither was, nor is a Corrections Officer.1 In reaching this decision, the majority displays, as Justice Frankfurter stated, “ignorance] as judges of what we know as men.” Watts v. State of Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 52, 69 S.Ct. 1357, 93 L.Ed. 1801 (1949). It has set aside its understanding of the most basic and fundamental aspect of prison life: that prisons are essentially composed of two distinct groups of individuals — those who are imprisoned and those who are charged with guarding the prisoners. Clearly, Walker is a prisoner. Just as clearly, Wadeck — whose primary responsibility as a Cook Supervisor is to supervise prisoners in preparing food and to ensure that the inmates are fed — also has a simultaneous secondary responsibility to guard the prisoners.
This latter responsibility, whether discharged by a Cook Supervisor, a prison engineer, a prison maintenance or equipment manager, or others who have prime responsibilities, requires these prison personnel to prevent prisoner escapes, and to prevent violations of prison rules, just as it requires them to perform all and every function entailed in guarding the prison population. Hence, Wadeck, as a Cook Supervisor, simultaneously bears not only the responsibility to ensure that the inmates are fed, but also bears the ongoing and continuous responsibility to guard these very prisoners. As such, he must necessarily be regarded as a Corrections Officer. To conclude that Cook Supervisor Wadeck is not a Corrections Officer is, as I have just indicated, to ignore what we know as a matter of common sense, and to construe Wadeck’s position without reference to either his overall prison responsibilities or our general knowledge of the way prisons operate.
The district court found that “Wadeck routinely supervises inmates during their employment, is responsible for ensuring that they are present during work hours, and is responsible for safety, security and discipline of inmates under his supervision.” United States v. Walker, 30 F.Supp.2d 829, 833 (M.D.Pa.1998). Wa-deck received specialized training for his position, including training in security and self-defense. Stationed throughout most of the penitentiary are correctional officers to guard the prisoners; however, — and *192this is most significant to me — no other Corrections Officers styled as such -are regularly posted in the kitchen area. Although Corrections Officers gather in the dining hall for security purposes, they are not present in any other part of the kitchen either during or between meals, leaving the maintenance of kitchen security solely to those such as Cook Supervisor Wadeck.2 It is Wadeck and other Cook Supervisors who make sure that the doors and grills are locked, search for contraband, prevent prisoners from escaping, and take action to prevent violations of prison rules. In the past Wadeck himself has responded • to emergencies and reported violations.
Cook Supervisors such as Wadeck help monitor and account for the whereabouts of prisoners assigned to their department, and directly supervise prisoners employed in the kitchen. And, although Cook Supervisors are not styled Corrections Officers, they wear dark blue uniforms to which are affixed the Bureau of Prisons emblem, wear duty belts, receive specialized training in security matters that are unique to Food Services (such as knowledge of food products that can be utilized in the making of controlled or prohibited substances, such as alcohol), and are responsible for reporting any missing inmates to correctional officers.3 Cook Supervisors are also authorized to pursue, arrest or detain escapees. Indeed, the district court found that Cook Supervisors also qualify for early retirement benefits as a “law enforcement officer” because, in addition to their food-related responsibilities, they share many of the duties of correctional officers. Finally, the district court also based its conclusion on the premise that Walker assaulted Wadeck while Wadeck was engaged in guarding prisoners.4
Walker does not contest the district court’s factual findings, but rather only its legal conclusion that those facts were sufficient to establish that Wadeck was a Corrections Officer within the meaning of Walker I. We “exercise plenary review over legal questions about the meaning of the sentencing guidelines, but apply the deferential clearly erroneous standard to factual determinations underlying their application.” United States v. Inigo, 925 F.2d 641, 658 (3d Cir.1991).
The majority’s opinion attempts to tailor the subset of prison employees that qualify as Corrections Officers based on the significance of the amount of time they spend guarding prisoners. In this endeavor, I believe the majority has erroneously and unnecessarily excluded from those discharging the functions of Corrections Officers all but those who are actually entitled Corrections Officers, and those employees such as lieutenants who instruct others to conduct shakedowns, security officers, locksmith officers, armory officers, senior officers, senior officer specialists, special investigative agents and correctional counselors. (Majority Op. at 188). Wadeck’s food preparation activities should not be *193construed to diminish the significant time he spends in guarding prisoners.
The majority places too much weight on the fact that any prison employee would be expected to respond to inmate fights or emergencies, write up inmates for violations, and make themselves available to prisoners with problems or complaints should the situation arise. Id. at 188-89. Although it is true that in some manner all employees share the responsibilities of prison security, my colleagues ignore the fact that unlike internal office prison personnel, for example, Corrections Officers including Cook Supervisors are constantly and continuously engaged in these duties. It makes no sense for the majority to discount the importance of the duties required of a Cook Supervisor merely because some other employees might on a rare occasion assume them as well. Nor is this analysis changed by the fact that, as the majority notes, it is cook foremen rather than Cook Supervisors who conduct shakedowns. (Id. at 189). The majority did not feel the need to eliminate armory officers, locksmith officers, special investigative agents, correctional counselors and others from its list of those who would qualify as Corrections Officers merely because another prison official conducts the shakedowns. Similarly and as a matter of logic, neither should Cook Supervisors fail to qualify as Corrections Officers on this basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. As I read the record, Walker I, and the district court’s findings of fact, the district court correctly categorized Wadeck as a Corrections Officer, and therefore properly enhanced Walker’s sentence to reflect Wadeck’s status as an official victim.5
As a second matter, the majority also addresses the issue of whether we should remand this case for resentencing of Walker because the majority charges that the district court failed to make specific findings of fact with respect to WalkeFs knowledge of Wadeck’s status as a Corrections Officer. We must recognize, however, that our mandate to the district court on remand in Walker I was to conduct “further fact-finding and, applying our definition of corrections officer, see if Walker is subject to the section 3A1.2(b) ‘Official Victim’ enhancement [of three levels].” Walker, 149 F.3d at 243. It appears to me that the district court made no point of Walker’s knowledge because our earlier opinion (Walker I) itself referred to Walker’s admission during his testimony that Wadeck was “a cop.” Id. at-242. Indeed, a review of the record reveals this telling admission.6
Further, given the uniforms worn by Cook Supervisors, the security measures taken by Cook Supervisors — including searching for contraband items, checking the security in the kitchen and monitoring prisoners — Walker had to have been aware *194that Wadeck was a Corrections Officer, even if not formally titled as such. Certainly, he knew that Wadeck was not a prisoner. Although the district court understandably made no explicit finding with regard to Walker’s knowledge, presumably in light of our mandate, I am satisfied that the government’s burden as to this requirement was satisfied as well.
I would hold that Wadeck was a Corrections Officer; that Walker knew he was; and that the district court did not err in enhancing Walker’s sentence. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.

. The district court found, for example, that: “Between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., there is only one Cook Supervisor on duty to supervise 16 inmates without any other BOP employees, including Corrections Officers, present in the kitchen area.” Walker, 30 F.Supp.2d at 832 (emphasis added).
The district court also found that: "While Corrections Officers stand main line, they are not stationed in any other part of the kitchen area either during meals or between meals, and security is left to the Food Service Department.” Id.

. Employees specifically entitled "correctional officers” are employed at the penitentiary. But, we have not limited the definition of Corrections Officers, for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, to only those so entitled. See United States v. Walker, 149 F.3d 238, 242 (3d Cir.1998). Our definition also included "any person, ... however titled, who spends significant time guarding prisoners ... and all other persons assaulted while actually engaged in guarding prisoners.” Id.

.Just prior to Walker's attack, in his supervisory role Wadeck was directing two prisoner-workers as to the number of food trays he needed prepared.

. The "Official Victim” provision of section 3A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides that:
If—
(a) the victim was a government officer or employee; a former government officer or employee; or a member of the immediate family of any of the above, and the offense of conviction was motivated by such status, or
(b) during the course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom, the defendant or a person for whose conduct the defendant is otherwise accountable, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that a person was a law enforcement or corrections officer, assaulted such officer in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury,
increase by 3 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2.

. During the Sentencing, the following exchange occurred between Walker and his counsel:
Q: If Mr. Wadeck had been an inmate and called you a punk, what would you have done
A: I would have tried to kill him.
Q: You didn’t try to kill Mr. Wadeck, did you?
A: No, he was a cop.
Sentencing Hearing Transcript at 8.