United States v. Curtis Waldron , 458 F. App'x 190 ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-2328
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CURTIS WALDRON,
Appellant
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-10-cr-00261-001)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 10, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 17, 2012)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Curtis Waldron appeals his criminal sentence, arguing that the District
Court erred in failing to reduce the offense level for the crime to which he pled guilty,
escape from official detention, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) . We disagree with his
argument and will affirm.
Waldron, serving a federal felony sentence for various drug convictions, was in
federal custody at a halfway house in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On April 24, 2010,
Waldron was given permission to leave the halfway house in order to work at a nearby
McDonald’s. Waldron failed to return to the halfway house. A warrant was issued for
his arrest. A few days later, Waldron was arrested in York County, Pennsylvania.
At the time of his arrest, Waldron was found in a bed in a private residence. Next
to the bed, law enforcement officers executing the warrant found a bag containing $1,400
and crack cocaine. The owner of the residence in which Waldron was found asserted that
the bag belonged to Waldron. Waldron denied possession. As a result, Waldron was
arrested on state charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of
a small amount of marijuana.
On September 28, 2010, Waldron entered a guilty plea to a one-count information,
charging him with escape from official detention, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). The
District Court conducted a sentencing hearing in May 2011. At that time, the state felony
charges against Waldron were still pending. The District Court sentenced Waldron to 18
months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Section 2P1.1(a)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines sets the base
offense level for the crime of escape at 13. Section 2P1.1(b)(3) instructs the district court
to decrease the base offense level by 4 if the defendant escapes from a halfway house.
However, that reduction does not apply if, while the defendant was away from the
halfway house, he committed any federal, state, or local felony. U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1.
Waldron argues that the District Court should have reduced his base offense level
2
pursuant to § 2P1.1(b)(3) because, at the time of the sentencing, the state felony charges
against him were still pending. Additionally, the Government put forth no evidence,
other than the facts in the Presentence Report, which proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that Waldron committed another felony during the period of his escape.
Waldron did not object to any of the facts contained in the Presentence Report.
The District Court did not clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Waldron committed a felony during his period of escape. See United
States v. Aquino, 555 F.3d 124, 127 (3d Cir. 2009) (reviewing findings of fact for clear
error). The fact that the state charges were merely pending against Waldron does not
foreclose the District Court from concluding that Waldron committed a felony during his
escape. In reaching that conclusion, “a sentencing court may rely on the facts set forth in
the presentence report when their accuracy is not challenged by the defendant.” United
States v. Watkins, 54 F.3d 163, 166-67 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(b)(6)(D)). The Government was under no obligation to produce independent evidence
of Waldron’s possession with intent to distribute because Waldron did not object to the
Presentence Report. The District Court was entitled to rely on the facts contained in the
Presentence Report, and able to conclude that Waldron committed a felony due to his
possession of crack cocaine and $1,400.
Therefore, the District Court did not err in declining to reduce Waldron’s offense
pursuant to § 2P1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
3