United States v. Dennis M. Shepheard , 706 F. App'x 526 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15886
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00031-RDP-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DENNIS M. SHEPHEARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 15, 2017)
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 2 of 8
Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Shepheard was convicted of two counts of making harassing
communications under Ala. Code § 13A-11-8(b), as assimilated by 18 U.S.C.
§ 13(a).1 After a bench trial held before a magistrate judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3401(a), Shepheard was found guilty of harassing employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (the VA) by making hundreds of telephone calls over a six-week
period. On appeal to the district court, Shepheard’s conviction and sentence were
affirmed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3402. Before this Court, Shepheard contends the
magistrate judge and the district court erred because his calls fell within a safe
harbor provision in the statute. Alternatively, he asserts the statute is
unconstitutionally vague. In addition, Shepheard appeals the special condition
appended to his twenty-four month probation, which prevents him from contacting
the VA by phone except to talk to his doctors or to schedule appointments and
receive medications. After review,2 we affirm.
1
Under the Assimilative Crimes Act, a defendant who commits an act in certain areas
situated within but not under the jurisdiction of a state, commonwealth, territory, possession, or
district that would be punishable if committed within such jurisdiction is “guilty of a like offense
and subject to a like punishment” under federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 13(a).
2
Where a defendant has been convicted in a bench trial before a magistrate judge and
obtained review from the district court, we review the magistrate judge’s decision using the same
standard as the district court. United States v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360, 1364 (11th Cir. 2010). We
review de novo whether a criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to a defendant’s
conduct. United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir. 2013). We review a sentencing
2
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 3 of 8
I. DISCUSSION
A. Legitimate Business Telephone Communications
Under Alabama law, a person is guilty of the crime of harassing
communications if, with intent to harass or alarm another person, he:
a. Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by
telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written or electronic
communication, in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm[; or]
b. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with
no purpose of legitimate communication.
Ala. Code § 13A-11-8(b)(1). The statute goes on to provide what the parties refer
to as a “safe harbor,” which states that “[n]othing in this section shall apply to
legitimate business telephone communications.” Id.
Shepheard does not dispute that his many harassing calls satisfied the
requisites of subsection (a). He contends instead that his conduct fell within the
safe harbor provision. In Shepheard’s reading, the safe harbor permits harassment
so long as that harassment is in furtherance of a business purpose. He agrees with
the district court that “legitimate” in “legitimate business telephone
communications” represents an objective reasonableness standard. But he submits
that in business, harassment is reasonable.
court’s imposition of a specific condition of probation for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Cothran, 855 F.2d 749, 751 (11th Cir. 1988) (reviewing a term of condition under a prior
probation statute).
3
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 4 of 8
Shepheard’s argument carries its own refutation, and contravenes the rule
that “a statute is to be given a practical construction and not applied in such a way
as to lead to absurd results.” Junkins v. Glencoe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, 685 So. 2d
769, 772 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); accord P.J.B. v. State, 999 So. 2d 581, 587 (Ala.
Crim. App. 2008) (“As we have so often said, statutes must be given a reasonable
interpretation, not one that is illogical, incompatible with common sense, or that
would reach an absurd result that could not possibly have been intended by the
Legislature.”). Courts in Alabama, as elsewhere, must read statutes so as “to give
effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting a statute when that intent is manifested
in the wording of the statute . . . examin[ing] the statute as a whole and, if
possible, giv[ing] effect to each section.” First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Lee Cty.
Comm’n, 75 So. 3d 105, 111–12 (Ala. 2011) (quotation omitted). The object of
§ 13A-11-8(b) as a whole is to prohibit harassing communications. It would be
absurd against that backdrop to interpret the safe harbor to exempt business
harassment. Nothing in the statute suggests the Alabama legislature intended to
protect Shepheard’s imagined Hobbesian state of business nature. Rather, the safe
harbor exists to ensure no one is prosecuted for making “legitimate,” i.e.,
reasonable, business telephone communications. See Donley v. City of Mount
Brook, 429 So. 2d 603, 611–12 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), rev’d on other grounds
sub nom. Ex parte Donley, 429 So. 2d 618 (Ala. 1983) (holding that the safe harbor
4
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 5 of 8
of § 13A-11-8(b) covers such conduct as a single telephone call by a dissatisfied
consumer about a faulty product, a frustrated businessman about a breached
contract, or an “irate citizen” to his representative about a political issue).
Harassment is not reasonable, even in business; nothing about the safe harbor
suggests otherwise.
Shepheard’s conduct was clearly unreasonable. He agrees he called the VA
hundreds of times with an intent to harass, but contends his harassment was
calculated to achieve a legitimate business purpose; that is, to wear down VA
employees until they told him who authorized the transfer of his banking
information between VA departments. Calling several hundred times, often every
few minutes, for six weeks is not objectively reasonable, even to achieve his
ultimately benign purpose. Even if his first few calls were “legitimate business
telephone communications,” his subsequent calls were not; they were illegitimate
because they were unreasonable and harassing.
Shepheard contends that if the language “legitimate business telephone
communications” does not protect harassment in furtherance of a legitimate
business purpose, then the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it did not
give him fair notice and would promote arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
See United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[A] statute is
void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient
5
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 6 of 8
definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2]
in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
(quotation omitted)). He contends no one can say for sure at what point his
telephone calls became unreasonable. We express no opinion on whether there is
ambiguity in this provision at the margins because this is an as-applied challenge,
and as applied to Shepheard’s conduct, the statute is abundantly clear. Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 21, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2720, 177 L. Ed. 2d
355 (2010) (“Of course, the scope of the material-support statute may not be clear
in every application. But the dispositive point here is that the statutory terms are
clear in their application to plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, which means that
plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge must fail.”). It could not be anything but obvious
to an ordinary person that calling every day, repeatedly every three seconds
according to one witness, for six straight weeks, is unreasonable, and that so many
calls could not be considered “legitimate business telephone communications.”
See id. Likewise, whether or not the statute encourages arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement in borderline cases, there could be no such concern on
these facts. Shepheard’s conviction stands.
6
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 7 of 8
B. Substantive Reasonableness of Shepheard’s Sentence
The special condition to Shepheard’s probation, prohibiting him from
telephoning all VA facilities, is not substantively unreasonable, and the magistrate
judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing it. United States v. Cothran, 855
F.2d 749, 751 (11th Cir. 1988). The condition will protect the VA and its
employees from Shepheard’s harassment, which he vowed to continue even after
having been warned by the police he would receive a citation. It is directly related
to the nature and circumstances of his offense, and helps promote his respect for
the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b) (providing that a sentencing judge may impose a
special condition on a sentence of probation “to the extent such conditions are
reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)”). The
condition prevents Shepheard from accessing his means of harassment and
contains reasonable exceptions allowing him to receive the benefits and services to
which he is entitled; for example, he can still contact the VA by mail or through a
patient advocate. See United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1283–85 (11th Cir.
2003) (upholding special condition prohibiting defendant from accessing the
internet, through which he had harassed a woman and her twelve-year-old
daughter). Shepheard’s sentence was substantively reasonable, and the magistrate
judge did not abuse his discretion. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
7
Case: 16-15886 Date Filed: 08/15/2017 Page: 8 of 8
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Shepheard’s conviction and his
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
8