United States v. Lewis
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20990
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Lewis was charged with carjacking (Count One), ammunition possession by a felon (Count Two), and committing an offense while on pretrial release (Count Three).
- Count Three implements a provision that increases the sentence by up to ten years for offenses committed while released; it is to be consecutive to the underlying offense.
- Lewis was acquitted on Count One, convicted on Count Two, and convicted on Count Three after jury instruction on Count Three.
- The statutory maximum for the underlying offense (Count Two) was ten years; § 3147 could raise the maximum to twenty years; the district court imposed 138 months total (96 months Count Two, 42 months Count Three) and additional terms.
- The District Court treated § 3147 as a separate offense for Count Three, raising Apprendi concerns; on appeal the Third Circuit held § 3147 is a sentencing enhancement, the Count Three conviction was erroneous, but the sentence itself complied with the statute and guidelines; remand was ordered to vacate Count Three and its $100 special assessment, and to reflect two consecutive terms unless the district court on remand alters the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3147 can raise the underlying maximum by ten years. | Lewis—statutory maximum remains for underlying offense; enhancement cannot exceed underlying max. | Government—§ 3147 increases maximum by ten years regardless of separation as offense/enhancement. | § 3147 increases the maximum by ten years; sentence within new max. |
| Whether convicting Lewis of Count Three was proper given § 3147 is a sentencing enhancement not a separate offense. | Count Three conviction was permitted as a crime. | Count Three is an enhancement; conviction was plainly erroneous. | Count Three conviction was plainly erroneous; should be treated as enhancement on remand. |
| Whether the total sentence complied with Apprendi and the Guidelines given the enhancement could exceed the underlying maximum. | Total could exceed the underlying statutory max; Apprendi allows jury findings for enhancements that raise max. | Sentence within enhanced maximum and Guideline range; no Apprendi violation. | Apprendi considerations satisfied for admissible extent of sentence; but remand required for Count Three conviction. |
| Whether the case should be remanded to vacate Count Three and adjust the judgment accordingly. | Remand to remove Count Three and its $100 assessment. | District Court may adjust on remand if warranted. | Remand ordered to vacate Count Three and its assessment; two consecutive terms; otherwise 138-month sentence may stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Di Pasquale v. United States, 864 F.2d 271 (3d Cir. 1988) (§ 3147 is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense)
- Hecht v. United States, 212 F.3d 847 (3d Cir. 2000) (treating § 3147 as a sentencing enhancement)
- United States v. Couch, 291 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2002) (plain error review for sentence exceeding statutory maximum)
- Tann v. United States, 577 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2009) (Apprendi-based plain-error framework for sentencing enhancements)
- Randall v. United States, 287 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (enhancement need not be jury-tried when no risk of exceeding max; discusses § 3147 scope)
- Samuel v. United States, 296 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Apprendi considerations for § 3147 findings)
- Confredo v. United States, 528 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizes § 3147 increases maximum by ten years)