United States v. Raymond Napolitan
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15112
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Napolitan was convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and, separately, firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; he was sentenced to 78 months, consecutive to a state sentence for sexual assault.
- The defense argued for a new trial based on allegedly false testimony by two Government witnesses—Rodemoyer and Rubano—revealed during sentencing.
- The Government cross-appealed, challenging the District Court’s denial of two sentencing enhancements: 2D1.1(b)(1) (firearm, in connection with a drug offense) and 3C1.1 (obstruction via perjury).
- Evidence from the sentencing hearing showed Rodemoyer had purchased a key to the safe months earlier and that two keys were recovered inside the safe, prompting Napolitan’s Rule 33/34 motions.
- The District Court declined to apply the enhancements or grant a new trial, and Napolitan’s federal sentence was later vacated and remanded for resentencing while his conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence requires a new trial | Napolitan: new evidence shows false trial testimony by Rodemoyer and Rubano | Napolitan: prosecutors concealed or misrepresented key facts; new evidence warrants relief | No new trial required; conviction affirmed. |
| Whether the firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) was correctly denied | Napolitan: government showed possession; standard misapplied | Napolitan: district court misapplied the clearly improbable standard | Firearm enhancement should have applied; remand for resentencing. |
| Whether the obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1 should have been imposed | Napolitan: perjury established by trial testimony and sentencing evidence | Napolitan: court erred in denying enhancement and in not making explicit perjury findings | Remand to determine perjury with explicit findings; enhancement to be applied if proven. |
| Whether the district court erred in not making explicit findings for perjury under Dunnigan | Napolitan: perjury findings required for appellate review | Court’s refusal to apply perjury enhancement should be reviewed for clear error | Explicit findings required on remand; perjury determination to be made. |
| Whether the court should vacate and remand for resentencing based on guideline misapplication | Napolitan: misapplied guidelines affected sentence | Remand appropriate to correct errors | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kelly, 539 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2008) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence; heavy burden to prove each element)
- United States v. Cimera, 459 F.3d 452 (3d Cir. 2006) (frame of Rule 33/new-trial analysis; evidentiary requirements)
- United States v. Jasin, 280 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2002) (high burden for new-trial motions; diligence in trial examination matters)
- United States v. Drozdowski, 313 F.3d 819 (3d Cir. 2002) (four factors for clearly improbable standard under 2D1.1(b)(1))
- United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (burden-shifting framework: government proves possession; defendant must show clearly improbable connection)
- United States v. Smythe, 363 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) (burden-shifting framework for firearm enhancement)