United States v. William Boney
769 F.3d 153
3rd Cir.2014Background
- In Nov. 2010 Boney brokered a multi-kilogram cocaine transaction with Haines, who was a DEA confidential informant; DEA arrested Boney after surveilling the deal.
- After a cooperation relationship soured, the DEA learned Boney sought to have Haines killed; informant Garrett posed as a hit man and met with Boney multiple times in 2011.
- Recorded meetings show Boney solicited Garrett to kill Haines (or Haines’s newborn), provided identifying information and discussed payment.
- A grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Boney with (inter alia) Count I: drug conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846); Count II: attempted killing with intent to retaliate (18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(B)); Count IV: solicitation to retaliate (18 U.S.C. § 373).
- A jury convicted on Counts I, II, and IV; the district court adopted different Guidelines sections than the PSR for Counts II and IV, applying § 2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice) instead of the Chapter 2 offense guidelines the Statutory Index pointed to, then grouped and sentenced Boney to 220 months.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions but held the district court procedurally erred in its Guidelines selection for Counts II and IV and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court correctly selected the Chapter 2 guideline for Count II (§ 1513 attempt to kill with intent to retaliate) | Gov: District court must follow Guidelines Manual and Appendix A; PSR’s § 2A2.1 (Attempted Murder) applies | Boney: District court argued § 2J1.2 was a better fit based on trial-fact view | Court: Error — must select guideline based on the offense of conviction per Appendix A; § 2A2.1 is the appropriate guideline for Count II |
| Whether district court correctly selected guideline for Count IV (solicitation under § 373) | Gov: Appendix A lists § 2A1.5 and § 2X1.1; § 2A1.5 (Solicitation/Conspiracy to Commit Murder) is applicable | Boney: District court applied § 2J1.2 as a better fit | Court: Error — § 2J1.2 is not in Appendix A for § 373; § 2A1.5 is the correct choice (§ 2X1.1 applies only if no specific guideline covers solicitation) |
| Whether sentencing court may pick a guideline based on perceived factual fit rather than statutory/Appendix A mapping | Gov: Appendix A and § 1B1.2 require selection based on the offense of conviction, not the district court’s factual view | Boney: (implicitly) deference to district court’s factual assessment to fit a guideline | Court: Rejected — selection is a legal question under § 1B1.2 and must follow the Statutory Index and the indictment’s charged offense conduct |
| Whether convictions should be reversed on sufficiency or other trial challenges | Boney: insufficient evidence, entrapment, suppression, evidentiary and severance errors | Gov: evidence sufficient; procedural rulings proper | Court: Affirmed convictions — evidence supported jury verdict and trial rulings were without reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district court must correctly calculate Guidelines range before considering § 3553(a) factors)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (Guidelines remain the lodestone; correct calculation is procedural prerequisite)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines are advisory)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district court may vary from Guidelines in appropriate cases)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (review of within-Guidelines sentences)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (district court may impose non-Guidelines sentence based on disagreement with Commission)
- United States v. Aquino, 555 F.3d 124 (3d Cir.: guideline-selection is based on offense of conviction conduct)
- United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.: correct Guidelines calculation is crucial)