United States v. Almeida
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4853
1st Cir.2013Background
- Almeida was indicted for bank burglary under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and found guilty by jury.
- The district court sentenced Almeida under the robbery guideline (U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1) based on trial testimony describing a robbery, not the burglary guideline proposed by Almeida.
- The indictment charged Almeida with entering a bank with intent to commit a felony/theft, i.e., burglary, not robbery.
- The Probation Office applied § 2B3.1 with multiple enhancements, producing a higher sentence than the burglary guideline would have.
- Almeida argued the district court erred by applying the robbery guideline because the case was charged as burglary and not robbery, and the indictment did not allege force or intimidation.
- The First Circuit remanded for resentencing to determine the most appropriate guideline based on conduct charged in the indictment, not uncharged trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can robbery guidelines apply when burglary is charged? | Almeida | Almeida | Remand for reconsideration of the most appropriate guideline |
| Which guideline is most appropriate when multiple guidelines reference the statute? | Indictment governs | Court may look to conduct shown at trial | District court erred by using conduct not charged in the indictment |
| Should the court look to the indictment conduct only when selecting the guideline? | Indictment conduct controls | Trial conduct can inform the choice | Look to conduct charged in the indictment |
| Does the rule require constitutional objections to be resolved before remand? | Constitutional challenge permitted | Remand handles guideline error first | Remand without deciding the constitutional issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bah, 439 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2006) (plain reading requires looking to charged conduct)
- United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (limits when determining applicable guideline to charged conduct)
- United States v. Takahashi, 205 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000) (interpretation of 'most applicable' guideline language)
- United States v. Jackson, 117 F.3d 533 (11th Cir. 1997) (indictment-focused guideline selection)
- United States v. Dion, 32 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1994) (conduct to determine guideline heartland using common definitions)
- United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1993) (compare charged misconduct with guideline texts)
- United States v. Judkins, 267 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2001) (bank burglary requires considering applicable guidelines)