United States v. McKenzie ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    1999 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    9-22-1999
    United States v. McKenzie
    Precedential or Non-Precedential:
    Docket 98-5490
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999
    Recommended Citation
    "United States v. McKenzie" (1999). 1999 Decisions. Paper 260.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999/260
    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 1999 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    Filed September 22, 1999
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 98-5490
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    DAVID CHRISTOPHER MCKENZIE,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Crim. No. 98-00303)
    District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
    Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    September 17, 1999
    BEFORE: GREENBERG, SCIRICA, and RENDELL,
    Circuit Judges
    (Filed: September 22, 1999)
    Faith S. Hochberg
    United States Attorney
    George S. Leone
    Maureen A. Ruane
    Office of the United States Attorney
    970 Broad Street
    Room 700
    Newark, NJ 07102
    Attorneys for Appellee
    Lisa C. Evans
    Julie A. McGrain
    Office of Federal Public Defender
    800 Hudson Square
    Suite 350
    Camden, NJ 08102
    Attorneys for Appellant
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    This matter is before this court on an appeal from a
    judgment of conviction and sentence entered on November
    4, 1998, in the district court. The appellant, David
    Christopher McKenzie, pleaded guilty to an indictment
    charging him with a violation of 8 U.S.C. SS 1326(a) and
    (b)(2) by knowingly and willfully re-entering the United
    States after being deported subsequent to his conviction for
    commission of an aggravated felony. The district court
    sentenced McKenzie to a term of 41 months imprisonment
    to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release.
    The background of the case is as follows. McKenziefirst
    entered the United States from Jamaica in 1986. On April
    17, 1990, McKenzie was convicted in the Circuit Court of
    Prince George's County, Maryland, for felony possession of
    crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it. The state
    court sentenced McKenzie to a three-year term of
    imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of
    probation. The court, however, suspended two years and
    three months of the prison term. On October 26, 1996,
    McKenzie was arrested in the District of Columbia and
    charged with possession of an unlicensed and unregistered
    pistol and possession of ammunition. McKenzie, however,
    was not prosecuted for these alleged offenses as the
    government instead instituted proceedings against him
    leading to his deportation to Jamaica on June 3, 1997.
    2
    The events leading directly to this prosecution may be
    traced to May 8, 1998, when McKenzie arrived at Newark
    International Airport on a flight from Jamaica with an
    altered passport in someone else's name. McKenzie
    admitted to the immigration officers that he was not the
    owner of the passport, and that he had been deported for
    drug and weapons offenses. The prosecution culminating in
    this appeal followed.
    Pursuant to U.S.S.G. S 2L1.2 the district court calculated
    McKenzie's total offense level as 21, which, with a criminal
    history category of II, yielded a sentencing range of 41 to 51
    months. The computations were as follows. First, U.S.S.G.
    S 2L1.2(a) established a base offense level of 8. Then there
    was a 16-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    S 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because of McKenzie's conviction for an
    aggravated felony. Thus, McKenzie's adjusted offense level
    was 24. The court, however, made a 3-level reduction in
    calculating the total offense level for acceptance of
    responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. SS 3E1.1(a) and (b).
    McKenzie does not object to any of these calculations.
    McKenzie, however, requested a 2-level downward
    departure pursuant to Application Note 5 to U.S.S.G.
    S 2L1.2, which provides that:
    Aggravated felonies that trigger the adjustment from
    subsection (b)(1)(A) vary widely. If subsection (b)(1)(A)
    applies, and (A) the defendant has previously been
    convicted of only one felony offense; (B) such offense
    was not a crime of violence or firearms offense; and (C)
    the term of imprisonment imposed for such offense did
    not exceed one year, a downward departure may be
    warranted on the seriousness of the aggravated felony.
    It is that request that brings us to the crux of this appeal
    as the district court held that the application note was
    inapplicable because, notwithstanding the partial
    suspension of sentence, the circuit court imposed a term of
    imprisonment exceeding one year for the crack cocaine
    offense. We exercise plenary review on this appeal involving
    the interpretation of the sentencing guidelines. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Huff, 
    873 F.2d 709
    , 713 (3d Cir. 1989).
    3
    II. DISCUSSION
    McKenzie's argument is not complicated. He points to
    U.S.S.G. SS 4A1.2(b)(1) and (2) which provide that "[t]he
    term `sentence of imprisonment' means a sentence of
    incarceration and refers to the maximum sentence
    imposed" but that "[i]f part of a sentence of imprisonment
    was suspended, `sentence of imprisonment' refers only to
    the portion that was not suspended." The difficulty with
    McKenzie's position is, however, obvious as U.S.S.G
    S 4A1.2(b) defines "sentence of imprisonment" for purposes
    of computing a defendant's criminal history category, a
    subject not at issue in this case. Thus, U.S.S.G. S 4A1.2(b),
    which we emphasize refers to "sentence of imprisonment"
    rather than "term of imprisonment" as used in Application
    note 5, is not implicated here.
    What is implicated here is 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(48)(B) which
    provides that "[a]ny reference to term of imprisonment or a
    sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include
    the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a
    court of law, regardless of any suspension of the imposition
    or execution of that imprisonment or sentence or execution
    of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part."
    Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. S 2L1.2, which defines terms
    for "purposes of [that] guideline," incorporates the definition
    of aggravated felony in the last paragraph of 8 U.S.C.
    S 1101(a)(43) which uses the phrase "term of imprisonment"
    as defined in 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(48)(B).
    As we have indicated, McKenzie pleaded guilty to a
    violation of 8 U.S.C. S 1326 because he re-entered the
    United States after his conviction for an aggravated felony.
    Inasmuch as U.S.S.G. S 2L1.2 implements 8 U.S.C. S 1326,
    it follows inexorably that within the meaning of Application
    Note 5 McKenzie was convicted of an aggravated felony in
    which the term of imprisonment did exceed one year.
    Consequently, the district court interpreted the guidelines
    correctly. Finally, we point out that our result is in accord
    with United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 
    170 F.3d 1038
    ,
    1039-40 (10th Cir. 1999), which the parties indicate is the
    only published opinion directly on point.
    4
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons the judgment of conviction and
    sentence entered November 4, 1998, will be affirmed.
    A True Copy:
    Teste:
    Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-5490

Filed Date: 9/22/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015