United States v. Mark Zabielski
711 F.3d 381
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Zabielski robbed a West Newton, Pennsylvania PNC Bank on December 9, 2009, disguising himself and presenting a note demanding money.
- A teller handed over $4,767; Zabielski later sent $3,790 back to the bank in cleaned funds.
- He was identified from bank security footage and later pled guilty to one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- The PSR assigned a total offense level of 21 with a two-level enhancement for a threat of death, placing him in 37–46 months; Zabielski argued the enhancement did not apply, seeking an offense level of 19 (30–37 months).
- The district court applied the enhancement, considered § 3553(a) factors, and ultimately sentenced Zabielski to 24 months—below the bottom of the guideline range.
- Zabielski appealed, challenging the two-level threat enhancement as erroneous and arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the threat-of-death enhancement was harmless error | Zabielski: enhancement improperly applied given ambiguous conduct | Zabielski: no explicit threat; error in applying enhancement | Yes; enhancement deemed harmless; sentence affirmed |
| Whether the district court's use of the enhancement affected the sentence | Guidelines range used to justify the sentence | Court could rely on § 3553(a) factors to sentence below range | Held harmless; judge would have imposed same sentence sans erroneous enhancement |
| Whether Zabielski's sentence is substantively reasonable under § 3553(a) | Sentence too lenient or too harsh given mental health history and prior conduct | District court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and dependency on rehabilitation considerations | Substantively reasonable; affirmed |
| Whether the district court improperly relied on disputed assumptions about bipolar disorder or on arrest history | Court relied on unsupported mental health conjecture and bare arrest record | Record-supported background and rehabilitation considerations properly used | Rejections of the challenges; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (harmless error review and appellate standard for guideline calculations)
- United States v. Figueroa, 105 F.3d 874 (3d Cir. 1997) (guidelines interpretation and application)
- United States v. Flores, 454 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2006) (harmless error where substantial § 3553(a) factors support a below-range sentence)
- United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (harmless error where erroneous range would not have altered sentence)
- United States v. Smalley, 517 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2008) (harmless error considerations in § 3553(a) sentencing)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (S. Ct. 2011) (limitations on incarcerating for rehabilitation; rehabilitation discussion permissible)
- United States v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2013) (recent circuit discussion on harmless error in guidelines)