United States v. Smolka , 261 F. App'x 578 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4728
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    THOMAS E. SMOLKA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (3:05-cr-00525-REP)
    Argued:   November 2, 2007                 Decided:   January 11, 2008
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Robert James Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellant. S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public
    Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas E. Smolka appeals his conviction for failing to appear
    at a court proceeding in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    (a)(1)
    (West 2000), and he raises numerous challenges to his sentence. We
    affirm.
    In January 2003, Smolka pled guilty to mail and wire fraud
    charges stemming from his scheme, as a licensed attorney, to
    defraud clients by falsely promising to provide them legal advice
    during post-conviction relief proceedings.            Smolka was released on
    bond    pending   his   August    28,    2003,   sentencing   in   the   Eastern
    District of Virginia, but he fled the jurisdiction and failed to
    appear at sentencing.        Federal marshals eventually located Smolka
    in Portland, Oregon, and arrested him on March 23, 2004.                 He was
    returned to the Eastern District of Virginia and, in September
    2004, sentenced to a prison term of 78 months on the mail and wire
    fraud convictions.         In reaching this sentence, the district court
    took into account Smolka’s failure to appear for sentencing and
    imposed an obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
    During the time that he was a fugitive in Oregon, Smolka,
    operating under a false identity, concocted various fraudulent
    schemes that resulted in additional fraud-based charges. In August
    2004,    after    Smolka    had   been   returned   to   federal   custody   in
    Virginia, a federal grand jury in Oregon indicted him on a number
    of charges, including mail fraud, bank fraud, and Social Security
    2
    fraud.    In August 2005, Smolka pled guilty in Oregon to these three
    charges, for which he received a sentence of 37 months to run
    consecutively to the 78-month sentence imposed in the Eastern
    District of Virginia.
    Finally,     on    December    6,     2005,      Smolka     was   indicted   for
    violating 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
     based on his failure to appear at his
    sentencing for mail and wire fraud in August 2003 in Virginia.
    Section 3146(a)(1) punishes anyone who has been released under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3143
    (a) pending sentencing and “knowingly . . . fails to
    appear before a court as required by the conditions of release.”
    
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    (a)(1).            Following unsuccessful motions for
    recusal    of   the    district    judge       and   for   the   dismissal   of   the
    indictment for prosecutorial vindictiveness, Smolka opted for a
    bench trial.      However, when the district court advised him that
    this option could undermine his recusal argument on appeal, Smolka
    requested a jury trial.       At trial, Smolka stipulated to all of the
    government’s evidence and presented no evidence of his own.                       The
    jury returned a guilty verdict.
    The    district     court    imposed       a    60-month    sentence    to   run
    consecutively to his other sentences.                This sentence consisted of
    a 51-month term for the failure to appear offense under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    (a)(1), plus an enhancement of nine additional months under
    
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3147
     (West 2000).
    3
    On appeal, Smolka argues that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as vindictive. Smolka
    contends that the government intentionally delayed charging him
    with failure to appear under § 3146(a)(1) in order to manipulate
    the sentencing guidelines to produce a much greater sentencing
    range than would have otherwise applied.              According to Smolka, if
    the government had charged him earlier, the district court could
    have sentenced him for the failure to appear conviction and the
    predicate mail and wire fraud convictions at the same time, and the
    guidelines would have required the court to group the charges. See
    U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.8.        Application of the grouping rules,
    argues Smolka, would have yielded concurrent, not consecutive,
    sentences.
    The district court rejected Smolka’s argument, finding that he
    failed to present sufficient evidence of vindictiveness on the part
    of   the   government   to   overcome       the    presumption   of   regularity
    attached to prosecutorial decisions. See United States v. Johnson,
    
    325 F.3d 205
    , 210 (4th Cir. 2003).                The district court likewise
    rejected Smolka’s claim that the pre-indictment delay, i.e., “the
    passage of time between the alleged crime and the indictment,”
    deprived him of his right to a fair trial under the Due Process
    Clause, see United States v. Marion, 
    404 U.S. 307
    , 323-24 (1971),
    concluding that Smolka suffered no prejudice from the separate
    trial and sentencing on the failure to appear charge.
    4
    We agree that Smolka failed to establish this claim.                      Having
    reviewed       the    record,    we    find   it   devoid    of   facts    suggesting
    vindictiveness by the prosecution.                   The alleged pre-indictment
    delay is the result of Smolka’s own conduct, including his flight
    from justice and the criminal activity he engaged in while he was
    a fugitive.          Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his motion to
    dismiss the indictment as vindictive.
    Next, Smolka argues that the district judge was required to
    recuse himself under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 455
     (West 2006), which mandates
    that any district judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in
    which    his    impartiality         might    reasonably     be   questioned.”        
    28 U.S.C.A. § 455
    (a). Moreover, disqualification is required “[w]here
    [the judge] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
    personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
    proceeding.”         
    28 U.S.C.A. § 455
    (b)(1).          Smolka points to various
    snippets of the record that purportedly call into question the
    impartiality of the district court, including the judge’s comments
    during   the     prior    2004       sentencing    hearing    that   Smolka     was   an
    “embarrassment” to the legal profession; that he preyed on weak and
    vulnerable victims; and that Smolka was unlikely to learn any
    lesson from his conviction and punishment. Smolka further suggests
    that the district judge’s animosity for him was apparent during the
    sentencing proceedings for his § 3146 conviction, as reflected by
    the   court’s        rulings    on    various     enhancements    and     the   judge’s
    5
    characterization    of   various   defense    arguments     as   frivolous.
    Because none of the comments offered by Smolka, nor any other facts
    in the record, rise to the level of disqualifying bias, we conclude
    that the district court was well within its discretion to deny the
    recusal motion.    See United States v. Cole, 
    293 F.3d 153
    , 164 (4th
    Cir. 2002). Likewise, the legal rulings made by the district court
    in the course of imposing Smolka’s sentence were an insufficient
    basis for a recusal motion.     See Liteky v. United States, 
    510 U.S. 540
    , 555 (1974) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
    a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
    Smolka also raises several sentencing issues.          First, Smolka
    contends that in determining an appropriate sentencing range as
    recommended by the guidelines, the district court failed to group
    Smolka’s obstruction offense under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
     with the
    “underlying   offense    (the   offense    with   respect   to   which   the
    obstruction conduct occurred).”         See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.8.
    Smolka asserts that proper application of the grouping rules would
    have produced the same guideline range for both the failure to
    appear offense and the predicate wire and mail fraud offenses as
    Smolka originally faced in his 2004 sentencing for only the mail
    and wire fraud offenses. Because Smolka’s 78-month sentence was at
    the top of the sentencing range used in the 2004 sentencing, Smolka
    argues that he should not have received any additional prison time.
    6
    See, e.g., United States v. Gigley, 
    213 F.3d 503
    , 505-07 (10th Cir.
    2000).
    The government contends that the language of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    (b)(2) requires that “[a] term of imprisonment imposed under
    [
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    ] . . . be consecutive to the sentence of
    imprisonment for any other offense.”                 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3146
    (b)(2)
    (emphasis added).     In response, Smolka relies upon the commentary
    to U.S.S.G. § 2J1.6, which suggests that the sentencing court may
    determine a total sentence for both the underlying offense and the
    § 3146 offense and then divide the sentences between the offense.
    To the extent that a guidelines provision conflicts with a
    statute, we must follow the statute. See Stinson v. United States,
    
    508 U.S. 36
    , 38 (1993).            In view of the clear congressional
    directive set forth in § 3146(b)(2), we conclude that the district
    court correctly determined that it was required to impose the term
    of imprisonment for Smolka’s violation of § 3146(a) consecutively.
    See United States v. Packer, 
    70 F.3d 357
    , 59-60 (5th Cir. 1995);
    United States v. Crow Dog, 
    149 F.3d 847
    , 849-50 (8th Cir. 1998).
    Smolka    next   argues     that   he     was   entitled   to   a   downward
    adjustment of his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.
    See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).         Smolka’s argument rests on the fact that
    he did not object to the obstruction enhancement during the 2004
    sentencing    for   his   wire    and   mail    fraud   convictions,     that   he
    stipulated to the evidence at trial, and that he proceeded to trial
    7
    only     to     preserve    for     appeal       the        issues   of   prosecutorial
    vindictiveness and recusal.             We disagree.
    The sentencing court’s decision whether or not to award an
    acceptance of responsibility adjustment is committed to the court’s
    broad discretion.          See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.5.                 Typically, a
    defendant who proceeds to trial is precluded from receiving a
    reduction for acceptance of responsibility.                     See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,
    cmt. n.2.        Smolka argues that he went to trial only to preserve
    issues unrelated to factual guilt.                 See id. (explaining that in
    rare instances a defendant who goes to trial may be eligible for
    acceptance of responsibility where he does so to challenge the
    constitutionality of a statute or contest the applicability of a
    statute to his conduct).            Even if the defendant enters a guilty
    plea, an acceptance of responsibility adjustment is not automatic.
    See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.3.                        We agree Smolka failed to
    demonstrate that this is the rare case in which an acceptance of
    responsibility adjustment is appropriate despite his having gone to
    trial.        Smolka is neither raising a constitutional challenge to
    § 3146 nor challenging its application to his conduct. We conclude
    that   the     district     court’s     refusal        to    award   an   acceptance    of
    responsibility adjustment was not an abuse of discretion.
    Smolka     also     raises   a   double         counting      challenge   to    his
    sentence.        In sentencing Smolka for his mail and wire fraud
    offenses in 2004, the district court took into consideration his
    8
    failure to appear for sentencing and increased Smolka’s offense
    level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.         Without the two-level
    increase, Smolka’s sentencing range would have been 51-63 months.
    In determining Smolka’s total offense level on the failure to
    appear offense in 2006, the district court imposed a three-level
    enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.7 and 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3147
     because
    it was an “offense committed while on release.”               See U.S.S.G.
    § 2J1.7 (“If an enhancement under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3147
     applies, add 3
    levels to the offense level for the offense committed while on
    release . . .”).
    We note that, to avoid any improper double counting, the
    district court concluded a downward departure from the resulting
    sentencing range was appropriate and reduced the final range by 15
    months.     Moreover, we have previously determined that Congress
    intended for an enhancement under § 3147 to apply to an offense
    under § 3146(a).     Accordingly, we reject Smolka’s double counting
    claim.    See United States v. Fitzgerald, 
    435 F.3d 484
    , 487 n.3 (4th
    Cir. 2006) (“Although the enhancement is based on the conduct in
    the underlying offense, such double-counting is . . . authorized”
    because    “the   plain,   unambiguous   language   of   §   3147   and   the
    Guidelines permit the enhancement.”) (internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    Next, Smolka challenges the district court’s conclusion that
    his criminal history was underrepresented by criminal history
    9
    category   III   and   that    category     VI   more   accurately    reflected
    Smolka’s criminal history.            See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1).            The
    district   court   concluded     that     “Smolka’s     criminal   history    is
    underepresentative of the likelihood that he would recidivate,”
    J.A. 515, and that “[h]e has repeatedly time after time shown a
    willingness to violate the law.         He violated the law while he was
    on release . . . and it reflects . . . the kind of extensive
    criminal involvement that’s reflected in a category VI criminal
    history,” J.A. 516-17.
    Smolka   claims    that    the   district     court’s   upward   criminal
    history departure cannot be affirmed because the district court
    failed to consider, before settling on category VI, whether the
    intermediate criminal history categories adequately represented
    Smolka’s criminal history.         When a post-Booker sentencing court
    determines that appropriate grounds exist for a departure based on
    the inadequacy of Smolka’s criminal history score, the court still
    must adhere to our pre-Booker requirement that courts depart
    incrementally. See United States v. Dalton, 
    477 F.3d 195
    , 199 (4th
    Cir. 2007). This practice, however, does not require the court “to
    move only one level, or to explain its rejection of each and every
    intervening level,” nor do we require the sentencing court to “go
    through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses
    each criminal history category . . . it rejects en route to the
    category . . . that it selects.”            
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    10
    omitted).   We conclude that the district court provided sufficient
    reasoning from which it is apparent that it considered, but found
    inadequate, Criminal History Categories IV and V. In affirming the
    district    court’s   upward   departure,   we   also   reject   Smolka’s
    collateral estoppel argument. See United States v. Salemo, 
    81 F.3d 1453
    , 1464 (9th Cir. 1996).
    We have reviewed Smolka’s remaining arguments in light of the
    record and the findings of the district court and conclude that
    they are without merit.
    Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
    AFFIRMED
    11