United States v. Leon Durwood Harvey

See case details

UNITED STATES оf America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon Durwood HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-7067.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 11, 1989. Decided Sept. 13, 1989.

885 F.2d 181

below on the NLRB.⁵ Without attempting to further distinguish the decisions of our sister circuits, though, we hold that NPI‘s challenge must be analyzed under the principles set forth in

Financial Institution Employees, supra, rather than the principles of equity. In other words, employee turnover, just like a union reorganization, is a change in circumstance of no particular consequence unless it raises a question of representation. And again, to raise a question of representation, NPI must “demonstrate by objectivе considerations that it has some reasonable grounds for believing that the union has lost its majority status.”

Financial Institution Employees, 475 U.S. at 198, 106 S.Ct. at 1010.

NPI‘s only evidence, however, is the bare fact that employee turnover has occurred during the eight years since the election. This, without more, is insufficient to rаise a question of representation. Cf.

Universal Security Instruments Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 649 F.2d 247, 255 (4th Cir.1981) (“Replacement employees are presumed to support the unit in the same ratio as those replaced.“), and

N.L.R.B. v. 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, 824 F.2d 318, 323 (4th Cir.1987) (“Where a union is certified after a representation election, the employer cannot challenge majority status until it has bargained with the union for a reasonable period, usually one year.“). Indeed, the record is entirely devoid of evidence that new employеes are dissatisfied with or otherwise opposed to Local 61-C‘s representation. Were we to adopt NPI‘s argument that it was entitled to a hearing on this evidence, we would effectively hold that the passage of time and employee turnover аre sufficient to raise doubts about rank and file support. This we will not hold. Since NPI failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a question of representation, the NLRB properly declined to hold hearings on the issue of employee turnover.

We сonclude that the record supports the NLRB‘s determinations that John was eligible to vote in the 1981 election and that the intervening merger of Local 61-C‘s former affiliate did not call into question Local 61-C‘s rank and file support. We also conclude that NPI‘s barе assertions of employee turnover did not necessitate further hearings and further delays in these already unduly protracted proceedings. The NLRB‘s order directing National Posters, Inc., to bargain with the Baltimore Graphic Communications Union, Local 61-C is herеby ENFORCED.

John Kenneth Zwerling (Michael Lieberman, Zwerling, Mark, Sutherland, Ginsberg and Lieberman, P.C., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for defendant-appellant.

William Graham Otis, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., Kent S. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge:

Leon Durwoоd Harvey appeals the district court‘s denial of his Rule 35 motion to change a fine. We vacate and remand for reconsideration ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍because the district court‘s failure to make specific findings makes effective appellate review imрossible on the present record.

I

Harvey was convicted in January 1986 on numerous drug and tax related counts stemming from importation and possession of marijuana and hashish with intent to distribute, obstruction of justice, income tax evasion, and money laundering. On February 14, 1986, he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and a $100,000 fine on the charge of continuing criminal enterprise, to separate, consecutive five year terms for obstruction of justice and tax evasion, and to concurrent time for the remainder of the оffenses. Four days later, on February 18, 1986, the court entered a forfeiture order, requiring Harvey to forfeit two automobiles, a parcel of land, gems, and all other assets or interests. The court denied Harvey‘s motion to vacate the $100,000 fine in light of the forfeiture order.

In October 1987 Harvey filed a motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking reduction of his sentence and suspension of his fines. In response, the district court reduced Harvey‘s sentence from 40 to 30 years but refused to reduce or vacate the fine. Harvey now appeals the district court‘s refusal to reducе or vacate the fine.

II

In

United States v. Bruchey, 810 F.2d 456 (4th Cir.1987), we noted that “[d]espite the basic need for appellate deference to trial court sentencing ..., the sentencing process is not free from close appellate scrutiny. To begin with, appellate courts must carefully examine the process by which punishment is imposed even while deferring to the trial judge‘s ultimate sentencing decision.”

Id. at 458 (emphasis in original). We went on to hold that because the Victim and Witness Protection Act requires the district court to consider certain statutory fаctors before imposing restitution, 18 U.S.C. § 3580 (now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3664), we would require the district court to make specific fact findings on these factors in order to permit effective appellate review.

810 F.2d at 458.

We now extend this holding to cases, such as Harvey‘s, where sentence is impоsed under the sentencing requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3622. This section, now superseded by 18 U.S.C. § 3572, requires sentencing courts specifically to consider certain factors in connection with the imposition of fines. In this respect, this statute is comparable to the statute governing the imposition of restitution that wе construed in

Bruchey. Although neither statute by its terms requires the district court to make specific findings with regard to the listed factors, such findings are as essential to effective appellate review of the fines imposed pursuant to § 3622 as of restitution imposed pursuant to former § 3580.*

Harvey‘s fine was imposed for his violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (continuing criminal enterprise), and the Government contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3622 does not apply to the imposition of fines for conviction of title 21 offenses. This argument is without merit. The plain language of § 3622 does not limit its application to particular categories of offenses but refers simply to “a fine,” аnd the legislative history demonstrates convincingly that the statute ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍was intended to apply in this respect to the imposition of all fines. The House Report on the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984 contains the following language:

The purposes of the legislation are to make criminal fines more severe....

....

Federal judges should be given statutory guidance regarding the imposition of fines.

....

This legislation sets forth in statutory language the factors that the court must consider when deciding whether to impose a fine, and if a fine is to bе imposed, the amount of the fine.

....

Section 3622 ... sets forth those factors that a judge must consider when deciding whether to impose a fine and, if a fine is to be imposed, the amount of the fine.

H.R.Rep. No. 906, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 2, 3, 13, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5433, 5433, 5434, 5435, 5445. The legislative history also inсludes explicit references to drug offenses, which are found in title 21. See, e.g., id. at 4, 17, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 5436, 5450. Therefore, the factors to be considered in imposing Harvey‘s fine under his title 21 conviction are properly governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3622. Cf.

United States v. Condon, 816 F.2d 434, 435 (8th Cir.1987) (holding under the same legislative history that 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (on alternative finеs) “was intended to reach all criminal offenses, not simply those included in title 18“).

III

Because we cannot review the district court‘s order on the present record, we do not address Harvey‘s claims that the imposition of the $100,000 fine in combination with the forfeiture order was an abuse of discretion and that the fine itself was excessive under the eighth amendment. We vacate and remand for reconsideration of Harvey‘s Rule 35 motion respecting the reduction of fine. In accordance with this opinion the court shоuld indicate for the record its findings and the reasons for its action respecting the challenged fine.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

CHAPMAN, dissenting:

I dissent because I do not think

United States v. Bruchey, 810 F.2d 456 (4th Cir.1987), should be extended to fines that are within the statutory limit provided for conviction of a crime. In this case, the fine of $100,000.00 is well within the maximum range of $2,000,000.00 provided for conviction on a charge of continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848. Moreover, at the hearing on the motion under Rule 35 for reduction of sentence, neither the appellant nor his attorney ever asked for an articulation of the court‘s reasons for either originally imposing the fine of $100,000.00 or fоr refusing to reduce it. Consequently, I would affirm the imposition of the fine.

An appellate court has no power to review a sentence within the statutory limits unless ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍there is a clear abuse of discretion, a procedural defect or misinformation. See e.g.

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3009 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983);

United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446-47, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591-92, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972);

United States v. Gambino, 788 F.2d 938, 954 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 98, 93 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986);

United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862, 870 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S.Ct. 2921, 91 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986);

United States v. Barker, 771 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1985);

United States v. Bernard, 757 F.2d 1439, 1444 (4th Cir.1985). Accordingly, if these factors do not appear to be present, a court of appeals has no power or authority to review a district court‘s imposition of a sentence within the statutory ranges.

However, the majority begins its opinion by quoting

Bruchey, stating that “the sentencing process is not frеe from close appellate scrutiny.”

Bruchey, 810 F.2d at 458. While such a statement may apply in this circuit to restitution orders under former 18 U.S.C. § 3579, as in

Bruchey, this rule should not be extended to fines for criminal convictions that are within the range provided by Congress.

Restitution is implicitly different from a fine. Restitution seeks to compensate a victim for a loss caused by a convicted criminal‘s activity. As such, restitution has been considered by many commentators to be a quasi-civil remedy rather than a criminal sanction. See e.g. Harland, Monetary Remedies fоr Victims of Crime: Assessing the Role of the Criminal Courts, 30 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 52, 52-56 (1982); Slavin & Sorin, Project: Congress Opens a Pandora‘s Box—The Restitution Provisions of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 52 Fordham L.Rev. 507, 533 (1984); Note, Victim Restitution in the Criminal Process: A Procedural Analysis, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 931, 932 (1984). Because of the somewhat dual nature of restitution, additional safeguards, such as detailed findings in support of restitution, are necessary to protect the criminal‘s constitutional rights.

If restitution were sought in a civil case, the defendant would be afforded certain procedural safeguards, such as pleadings, disсovery, and trial by jury, not available at a criminal sentencing. ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍However, these devices are not available when a court imposes criminal restitution. In order to prevent a judge in a criminal case from arbitrarily imposing a restitution order, we required in

Bruchey thаt the judge make explicit findings of fact in support of his restitution order. Such a statement of reasons is beneficial in many ways:

Without such a statement it is impossible for an appellate court to know what information the trial judge relied on in reaching his decision. Additionally, requiring the trial judge to state his reasons encourages him to carefully consider the type and amount of restitution. Finally, a statement of reasons for ordering restitution helps the defendant to understand the purposes behind the order, thus enhancing its rehаbilitative effect.

Slavin & Sorin, supra, at 562-63. Therefore, the rule in

Bruchey is necessary because of the unique nature of criminal restitution.

However, extending

Bruchey to criminal fines within the range provided for by statute is unnecessary and would add just another obstacle to the trial judge‘s already complex sentencing process. When imрos-

ing a fine, the district court must consider the elements listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3622. However, it should not be required to make explicit findings as to each of the nine factors listed therein. As the Ninth Circuit has ruled, even though a district court may not make explicit findings in support of imposing a fine, “[t]hеre is no abuse of discretion when the court had before it information bearing on all the relevant factors, including facts necessary to consider imposition of a substantial fine, absent a record showing the court refused to consider the section 3622(a) factors.”

United States v. Weir, 861 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,

489 U.S. 1089, 109 S.Ct. 1555, 103 L.Ed.2d 858 (1989). Accord

United States v. Condon, 816 F.2d 434, 436 (8th Cir.1987).

Although other circuits have criticized

Bruchey, it is the law in this circuit and serves a useful purpose. However, to extend the rule from restitution to statutorily authorized criminal fines serves no purpose and invades the discretion given to district courts in sentencing criminals. Accordingly, I dissent.

Notes

5

We do note, howеver, that the NLRB‘s disposition of this case has been no model of administrative efficiency. Almost two and a half years elapsed after the first hearings on John‘s voting eligibility and the NLRB‘s decision. No good reason for this delay has been offered by the General Counsеl.

*

The dissent contends that the

Bruchey requirement should not apply here because there are differences between the imposition of fines and the imposition of restitution that justify requiring sentencing judges to record their reasons for imposing restitution but do not for imposing fines. The differences suggested are plausible ones. They might well have led Congress to treat the two differently. But Congress chose to treat them similarly—by specifically enumerating “factors” to be considered by sentencing judges in both cases. As the courts, preeminently the Supreme Court, аnd respected commentators consistently have recognized, the effect of such legislatively imposed “guides” or “constraints” upon the exercise of trial court discretion is two-fold. It requires trial judges to observe the constraints and to record the way in which they have done so, and it imposes upon reviewing courts the corollary obligation to assess specific exercises of discretion for “abuse” in light of the constraints. See, e.g.,

United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 2419-20, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1988) (“factors” to be considered in dismissing with or without prejudice for Spеedy Trial Act violations);

Bruchey, 810 F.2d at 458; Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory Law Journal 747, 767-71 (1982); M. Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed From Above, 22 Syracuse L.Rev. 635, 665-61 (1971). This appellate obligation obviously cannot be met unless trial courts are required in some ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‍minimally appropriate way to evidence that they have been mindful of their obligation to take the factors into account. See

Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336, 108 S.Ct. at 2420; see also Rosenberg, supra at 665-66; Friendly, supra at 770-71.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Leon Durwood Harvey

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 13, 1989

Citation: 885 F.2d 181

Docket Number: 88-7067

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.