United States v. Smith ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    7-8-2008
    USA v. Smith
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-3222
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Smith" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 877.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/877
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 07-3222
    _____________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    GERALD L. SMITH,
    Appellant
    ________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. No. 07-cr-00201)
    District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles
    ____________
    Argued June 6, 2008
    Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed July 8, 2008)
    Robert Epstein (Argued)
    Sarah S. Gannett, Esq.
    Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    Suite 540 West – Curtis Center
    601 Walnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19106
    Counsel for Appellant
    James R. Pavlock (Argued)
    United States Attorney’s Office
    615 Chester Street, Suite 1250
    Philadelphia, PA 19106
    Counsel for Appellee
    ____________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ____________
    CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
    Gerald Smith appeals the District Court’s order revoking his supervised
    release and imposing a sentence of five years’ incarceration. Smith argues that the
    District Court erred in ruling that his conviction of unlawful restraint/involuntary
    servitude in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(2) constituted a “crime of violence”
    under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We disagree and
    will affirm the order of the District Court.
    I.
    As we write only for the parties, we do not set out the facts in great detail.
    On May 24, 2007, Gerald Smith’s probation officer filed a petition for Violation of
    Supervised Release. The District Court held a hearing on the matter, at which the
    Government presented evidence that Smith pled guilty in state court to multiple
    new offenses, including: (1) two counts of unlawful restraint/involuntary servitude
    in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(2); (2) two counts of recklessly endangering
    another person in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705; (3) various drug possession
    offenses; and (4) various traffic offenses. The Government also presented
    2
    evidence that Smith had failed to report to his probation officer in June, July, and
    August of 2006.
    The District Court revoked Smith’s supervised release based on his
    admissions that he committed a crime and failed to report to his probation officer
    while on supervised release. The District Court concluded that Smith’s conviction
    for unlawful restraint/involuntary servitude constituted a “crime of violence,” and
    was therefore a Grade A violation. The court imposed the maximum sentence of
    five years imprisonment to be served consecutively with his state sentence.
    II.
    We have appellate jurisdiction over the final decision of the District Court
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and over the sentence imposed under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a).
    We review de novo whether a particular crime constitutes a “crime of violence.”
    United States v. Siegel, 
    477 F.3d 87
    , 90 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007). We review sentences
    imposed for violations of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v.
    Bungar, 
    478 F.3d 540
    , 542 (3d Cir. 2007). We must determine whether the
    District Court “reasonably applied” the sentencing factors in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    to this case. United States v. Cooper, 
    437 F.3d 324
    , 330 (3d Cir. 2006). Our
    review of the District Court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is deferential,
    “[b]ecause the trial court is in the best position to determine the appropriate
    3
    sentence in light of the particular circumstances of the case.” United States v.
    Parker, 
    462 F.3d 273
    , 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted).
    III.
    Smith argues that the District Court erred in its conclusion that his
    conviction for unlawful restraint/involuntary servitude constituted a crime of
    violence. We disagree.
    The Sentencing Guidelines define the term “crime of violence” as
    [A]ny offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment
    for a term exceeding one year, that-
    (1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
    physical force against the person of another, or
    (2) . . . or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential
    risk of physical injury to another.
    U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (emphasis added). In order to determine whether a conviction
    constitutes a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, we apply the
    “formal categorical approach,” under which we “‘must look only to the statutory
    definitions of the prior offenses’ and may not ‘consider other evidence concerning
    the defendant’s prior crimes,’ including, the ‘particular facts underlying [a]
    conviction[].’” Singh v. Ashcroft, 
    383 F.3d 144
    , 147-48 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting
    Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
    , 600 (1990)); see also United States v.
    Otero, 
    502 F.3d 331
    , 335 (3d Cir. 2007).
    4
    The categorical approach “requires three steps. First, we must establish for
    which specific crimes [Smith] was convicted. Second, we must interpret the
    necessary elements of those crimes. Third, we must determine whether those
    elements necessarily bring the state crime within one of the definitions of [crime of
    violence], as we construe them.” United States v. Remoi, 
    404 F.3d 789
    , 792-
    93 (3d Cir. 2005).
    At the revocation hearing, the Government presented evidence that Smith
    was convicted and sentenced under Pennsylvania law of “knowingly . . . hold[ing]
    another in a condition of involuntary servitude.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(2). The
    Government argued, and the District Court agreed, that the plain language of
    Pennsylvania’s unlawful restraint/involuntary servitude statute “connotes . . . the
    use of force or some kind of imprisonment that was accomplished by force or
    threatened force.” Appendix (App.) 35.
    We conclude that the conviction satisfies the definition set forth in the
    second prong of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). “Knowingly” “hold[ing]” a person
    “involuntarily” involves an inherent risk of physical injury. Even if the person is
    not held by force, there is a strong likelihood that a person would use force to
    resist being held, and physical injury would ensue. See, e.g., United States v.
    Luster, 
    305 F.3d 199
    , 201-02 (3d Cir. 2002) (determining that the crime of escape
    under Pennsylvania law, “by its nature, present[s] a serious potential risk of
    physical injury to another”); United States v. Riva, 
    440 F.3d 722
    , 723-25 (5th Cir.
    5
    2006) (explaining that under Texas law, unlawful restraint – “whether
    accomplished by force, intimidation, or deception” – creates a serious potential
    risk of injury and is therefore a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)).
    Moreover, Smith’s reliance on Begay v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 1581
    (2008), in which the Supreme Court considered the definition of “violent felony”
    under the Armed Career Criminal Act, is unavailing. Contrary to Smith’s
    contention, his conviction for unlawful restraint/involuntary servitude is not akin
    to a conviction for the strict liability offense of driving under the influence of
    alcohol.
    Accordingly, we conclude that Smith’s conviction for unlawful restraint/
    involuntary servitude constitutes a Grade A violation of supervised release for
    sentencing purposes. Given our determination that this conviction constitutes a
    crime of violence, we need not consider whether his conviction for reckless
    endangerment also constitutes a Grade A violation of supervised release.
    IV.
    Smith argues that the District Court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence
    of five years was unreasonable in light of his need for rehabilitative and
    transitional services and the length of his state sentence. According to Smith, the
    District Court failed to give meaningful consideration to the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    factors. We disagree.
    6
    To satisfy the reasonableness requirement, the “record must demonstrate
    the trial court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors. A district
    court need not [however] discuss and make findings as to each of the § 3553(a)
    factors.” Parker, 
    462 F.3d at 276
     (citations and quotation marks omitted). The
    District Court heard from defense counsel about Smith’s medical condition as well
    as his difficulty with the transition back into society after nearly 20 years of
    incarceration. Smith also testified as to his need for treatment and asserted that he
    was remorseful for his actions. The court, however, rejected Smith’s request for
    leniency on the ground that Smith could have sought help from his probation
    officer, but instead failed even to report to him.
    The District Court sufficiently stated its reasons for the sentence it imposed
    and meaningfully considered the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning a sentence
    appropriate to the circumstances of Smith’s case. The sentence was within the
    upper end of the advisory guidelines range for a Grade A violation. We conclude
    therefore that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
    V.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s
    revocation of supervised release and the sentence imposed.
    7