Filed: Apr. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-25-2008 USA v. Aquino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2547 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Aquino" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1326. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1326 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-25-2008 USA v. Aquino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2547 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Aquino" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1326. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1326 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-25-2008
USA v. Aquino
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2547
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Aquino" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1326.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1326
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2547
UNITED STATES
v.
NICHOLAS AQUINO,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cr-00287)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 16, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FISHER, Circuit Judges, and MICHEL,* Chief Circuit Judge
(Filed: April 25, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*
The Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
MICHEL, Chief Circuit Judge.
Defendant Nicholas Aquino appeals from the sentencing order following his
conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce and
brandishing firearms during a crime of violence. Because we discern no harmful error in
the District Court’s sentencing order, we will affirm the order.
I.
Because we write solely for the parties, we recite only those facts central to our
analysis. Aquino was indicted by a grand jury for five counts of robbery affecting
interstate commerce, conspiracy to commit those robberies, and two counts of
brandishing firearms in furtherance of those crimes of violence. After reaching a plea
agreement with the government, Aquino pled guilty to one of the firearms charges and the
conspiracy charge.
At the sentencing hearing, Aquino objected to several aspects of the presentence
investigation report (“PSR”). First, he objected to a two-level enhancement for bodily
injury inflicted on a store employee on July 23, 2005, during the robbery of Weis Market
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the ground that the injuries were too minor to warrant the
enhancement. He next objected to a two-level enhancement for bodily injury suffered by
the manager of Sierra Madre Restaurant in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, during a
robbery on August 21, 2005, on the grounds that the injury was not caused by Aquino but
by his co-conspirator, Paul Butler, and that the assault was not foreseeable. Finally,
2
Aquino also objected to a four-level enhancement for abduction of the manager and two
employees during the Sierra Madre Restaurant robbery on the ground that forcing people
to move a short distance within a single premises does not constitute abduction. The
District Court also heard testimony from Aquino as well as the manager of the Sierra
Madre Restaurant. The manager testified that he and two of his employees were outside
the restaurant when they were accosted by Butler and Aquino, who forced them to go
back inside at gunpoint. He also testified that Butler hit him on the head several times
with a gun during the robbery.
The District Court found for the government as to all of Aquino’s objections. The
Court sentenced Aquino to seven years’ imprisonment for the firearms offense, which is
the statutory mandatory minimum sentence and which is required to be served
consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(b)(1). Following the PSR’s
recommendations as to the conspiracy charge, the District Court accepted the offense
level calculation for the Sierra Madre Restaurant robbery (thirty-one) as the highest of the
robberies, also accepting the increase by four for the other four robberies and a decrease
by three for acceptance of responsibility for a final offense level of thirty-two for the
conspiracy offense as a whole. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.2(d), 3D1.2(d), 3E1.1. The
guideline range for this offense level and Aquino’s criminal history category was 188-235
months for the conspiracy charge. But the District Court also granted the government’s
motion for a downward departure due to Aquino’s substantial assistance to the
3
government, sentencing him to 136 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy offense for
a total of 220 months’ imprisonment for both the firearms (seven years, or eighty-four
months) and conspiracy offenses.
II.
Aquino argues three errors on the part of the District Court in its sentencing order.
First, Aquino asserts that the District Court erred by accepting the abduction enhancement
because forcing people to move within a single premises does not constitute abduction.
Second, Aquino argues that the District Court erred by enhancing the offense level for the
Sierra Madre Restaurant robbery for bodily injury when no evidence was presented that
the manager’s injuries were painful, obvious, or one for which a person would ordinarily
seek medical treatment. Finally, Aquino states that the District Court erred by enhancing
the offense level for the Carlisle Weis Market robbery for bodily injury when the victim
received only minor injuries.
1.
As the District Court noted, the Guidelines provide an example of abduction in its
definition of the term:
“Abducted” means that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a
different location. For example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from
the bank into a getaway car would constitute an abduction.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 app. n.1(A). Here, Aquino and Butler forced the Sierra Madre
Restaurant manager and employees to accompany them from outside the restaurant back
4
inside at gunpoint. We agree with the District Court that the facts of this case are
indistinguishable from the Guidelines’ example and thus that the four-level enhancement
for abduction was appropriately applied here. Aquino cites no contrary authority and, in
fact, concedes that our sister circuits have also affirmed the application of the abduction
enhancement in similar cases. See United States v. Hickman, 151 F.3d 446, 462 (5th Cir.
1998); United States v. Taylor,
128 F.3d 1105, 1110-11 (7th Cir. 1997); see also United
States v. Whooten,
279 F.3d 58, 61 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Hawkins,
87 F.3d
722, 727 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Elkins,
16 F.3d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1994).
2.
We next turn to Aquino’s objections to the enhancements for bodily injury. We
first note that, unlike the two other objections argued on appeal, Aquino did not raise at
sentencing the objection to the bodily injury enhancement for the Sierra Madre Restaurant
robbery that he now asserts. Rather, Aquino’s only objection to this enhancement at
sentencing was that the injury was inflicted not by him but by Butler, and that his
sentence should not be affected by Butler’s conduct because it was not foreseeable in this
regard. Aquino now abandons that objection and instead argues that the government
failed to show that the manager’s injuries were significant enough for the enhancement
under the Guidelines.
Because this objection was not raised at sentencing, we apply a plain error
standard of review. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States
5
v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2006). To reverse, we must find that the error was
clear or obvious, affected the substantial rights of the Defendant, and “seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Olano, 507 U.S. at
732-36;
Dragon, 471 F.3d at 505. We do not discern such an error here.
The Guidelines define “bodily injury” as “any significant injury; e.g., an injury that
is painful and obvious, or is of a type for which medical treatment ordinarily would be
sought.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 app. n.1(B). At the sentencing hearing, the manager of the
Sierra Madre Restaurant testified that he was hit repeatedly on his head with a gun. In
addition, the PSR indicated that medical treatment was offered to the manager (though he
refused it). The District Court’s finding that these facts supported a finding of bodily
injury within the meaning of the Guidelines is not plain error.
Aquino relies principally on United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933, 946-47 (5th
Cir. 1999), where a sentence was vacated and the case remanded on the ground that an
enhancement for bodily injury was applied in error. We hold that Guerrero does not
compel a different result. First, the Guerrero panel expressly declined to review the
bodily injury aspect of the sentence under the more deferential plain error standard. In
addition, the Fifth Circuit remarked that evidence of the severity of an assault may
support a finding of bodily injury when, for that type of attack, “the resulting injury
follows automatically and is obvious.”
Id. at 947. Here, it was not plain error for the
District Court to view repeated beatings to the head with a gun as such an attack. See
6
United States v. Perkins, 89 F.3d 303, 308 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that hitting a victim in
the head with a gun and kicking him in the face, thus injuring him, was sufficient to
support a finding that the injury was significant enough to warrant the bodily injury
enhancement under the Guidelines).
3.
Lastly, we discern no reversible error as to the two-level enhancement for bodily
injury recommended by the PSR for the Carlisle Weis Market robbery. Under U.S.S.G. §
1B1.2(d), the conspiracy offense was treated as five separate counts of conspiracy
corresponding to each of the five robberies for the purpose of calculating offense levels.
Due to the prohibition on combining robbery offenses covered by U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, each
count’s offense level was calculated separately. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). Under U.S.S.G. §
3D1.4, the highest of these offense levels—thirty-one for the Sierra Madre Restaurant
robbery—was then taken as the base to calculate the combined offense level for all of the
offenses. Aquino voices no objection to these procedures.
Since we find no error in the District Court’s evaluation of the offense level for the
Sierra Madre Restaurant robbery, we see no error in basing the combined offense level on
that robbery because its offense level was the highest of the five robberies. Thus, even if
we were to find error in the District Court’s bodily injury enhancement of the Carlisle
Weis Market robbery’s offense level, such an error would be harmless because the Sierra
Madre Restaurant robbery would still have the highest offense level and the Carlisle Weis
7
Market robbery would still count for one unit toward the combined offense level.
As a result, we will affirm the District Court’s sentencing order.
8
