United States v. Thomas, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1332

Thomas, an inmate at Hazelton, challenged two §111 assault convictions arising from a 2009 incident in the A-1 Unit.
During the 4:00 p.m. count, Thomas refused to stand; a cell search was conducted leading to his return to the cell.
Thomas allegedly threatened Officer Richards, then punched her after being restrained by other officers; injuries were documented.
Evidence at trial included officer testimony, a hallway video, and medical records; Thomas and Tarver offered competing accounts.
The district court convicted Thomas on Count One (threat to kill with intent to commit a felony) and Count Two (bodily injury), sentencing concurrently but consecutively to a prior term.
On appeal, Thomas urged indictment defects, multiplicity challenges, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Indictment defects plain error	Thomas argues Count One lacked ‘intent to commit another felony’ and Count Two lacked ‘bodily injury’.	Thomas contends these omissions render the indictment defective and prejudicial.	Plain error but not reversible; evidence and findings cured defects
Multiplicity of counts	Thomas claims a single course of conduct supports one assault, not two.	Thomas argues Ladner governs and the acts were a single offense.	Not multiplicitous; intervening events supported two distinct assaults
Hearsay and defense testimony	Thomas contends hearsay rulings improperly limited his defense.	Thomas asserts his state-of-mind testimony was improperly excluded and relevant hearsay allowed.	No reversible abuse; rulings within discretion and relevant evidence was properly limited
Sentence under §2A2.2 vs §2A2.3	Thomas contends misapplication of sentencing guideline based on §111(b) elements.	Conviction under §111(b) supports §2A2.2 enhancement.	Properly sentenced under §2A2.2

Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169 (1958) (one shot/act under §111 does not equal multiple assaults)
Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975) (recognizes Ladner framework for multiple assaults)
Segien, 114 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 1997) (how to distinguish separate assaults in a course of conduct)
Shumpert Hood, 210 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2000) (factors for separate assaults in a course of conduct)
Hopkins, 310 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2002) (more than one act of forcibly assaulting a federal officer can support multiple charges)
Rivera Ramos, 856 F.2d 420 (1st Cir. 1988) (look to intervening acts to distinguish separate assaults)
Theriault, 531 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1976) (course of conduct considerations in multiple assaults)
Goodine, 400 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2005) (multiplicity standards in indictments for multiple assaults)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain error framework for unpreserved issues)
Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169 (1958) (repeated for emphasis on separate acts distinction)