United States v. Khalil Carter
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18988
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Khalil Carter was released on supervised release after federal convictions; supervised release began Nov. 2009.
- Probation filed a revocation petition based on two incidents: (1) June 2010 sexual assault of girlfriend’s 13‑year‑old daughter (Carter pled to state misdemeanors for endangering welfare of a child and corruption of a minor); (2) Oct. 2011 access device fraud (plea and state sentence).
- At revocation hearings the district court considered evidence of Carter’s actual conduct (victim statement, plea transcript, toxicology, mother’s testimony, Carter’s statement); the court credited the mother and found Carter had touched the girl and provided alcohol.
- The court classified the sexual conduct as a "forcible sex offense" and thus a "crime of violence," treating the violation as Grade A (raising the Guidelines range) and revoked supervised release, sentencing Carter to 37 months (above guideline range) to run consecutively to state time.
- Carter appealed, arguing the court erred by basing the Grade A classification on uncharged/unconvicted conduct and by failing to specify the statutory offense that contained a force element.
- The Third Circuit held that district courts may rely on actual conduct (not just convictions/charges) in revocation proceedings, but must identify the statutory offense violated; failure to name the specific crime was error but harmless because the court expressly would have imposed the same sentence on alternative grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts may consider uncharged/unconvicted conduct when grading a supervised‑release violation | Carter: grading must be limited to offenses charged/convicted; categorical approach should apply | Government: court may consider defendant’s actual conduct at revocation to determine grade | Court: Revocation context allows consideration of actual conduct; categorical approach does not apply |
| Whether the sexual‑assault conduct qualified as a “crime of violence” for Grade A classification | Carter: state charges lack forcible‑force element; thus not a forcible sex offense | Government: facts established by preponderance show forcible sexual conduct | Court: District court could find forcible sex offense on record, but failed to identify the specific statutory offense |
| Whether omission of a specific statutory crime was reversible error | Carter: absence of specific crime prevents appellate review of grading | Government: record supports Grade A and sentence | Court: Failure to name the statute was error because it prevents review, but here error was harmless because court would have imposed same sentence anyway |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable given the error and sentencing factors | Carter: incorrect Guidelines baseline made sentence procedurally flawed | Government: court explained reasons for upward sentence and public‑safety concerns | Court: Sentence affirmed as within discretion; court provided alternative basis and considered relevant factors sufficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical‑approach rule for defining prior offenses)
- United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562 (3d Cir. 2004) (no requirement of conviction or indictment to find supervised‑release violation)
- United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2005) (uncharged conduct may support revocation; grade based on actual conduct)
- United States v. Siegel, 477 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2007) (use of categorical approach in career‑offender context; limits on treating minor sexual touching as crime of violence)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. en banc 2007) (preponderance standard for revocation fact‑finding; sentencing review framework)
- United States v. Jackson, 549 F.3d 1115 (7th Cir. 2008) (harmless‑error affirmation where court would have imposed same term absent classification as crime of violence)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. (2013) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- United States v. Remoi, 404 F.3d 789 (3d Cir. 2005) (context on "forcible sexual offenses" under a different Guidelines provision)
- United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (harmless error analysis when incorrect starting point does not affect sentence selection)