United States v. Caraballo

88 F.4th 239

UNITED STATES of America v. Michael CARABALLO, Appellant

No. 22-1976

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 17, 2023

Filed: December 8, 2023

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 3-17-cr-00277-001), District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani

Gino A. Bartolai, Jr., 238 William Street, Pittston, PA 18640, Counsel for Appellant

Gerard M. Karam, Robert J. O'Hara, Office of the United States Attorney, 235 N Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 309, Suite, 311, Scranton, PA 18503, Counsel for Appellee

Before: SHWARTZ, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.

Michael Caraballo appeals his sentence for an aggravated assault. Caraballo challenges the District Court's finding that the injuries sustained by Caraballo's victim amounted to serious bodily injury rather than bodily injury under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). This finding resulted in a higher guideline range for Caraballo, which Caraballo contends led to the District Court erroneously imposing a lengthier sentence for his role in the aggravated assault. Because the phrase serious bodily injury as used in the relevant guideline is ambiguous, we turn to the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of the phrase in the commentary to the Guidelines. And we hold that the reasonableness, character, and context of the Sentencing Commission's interpretation entitles it to controlling weight. Applying the commentary definition, we hold that the District Court did not commit clear error by concluding that the victim's injuries constituted serious bodily injury rather than bodily injury. Thus, we will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2017, Caraballo and his co-defendant, both inmates at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan ("USP Canaan"), assaulted a third inmate ("P.R.") in the prison gymnasium. Caraballo struck and attempted to strike P.R. with a five-inch metal shank. After the assault, medical personnel at USP Canaan assessed P.R. and transferred him to the emergency room of a local hospital. P.R. stayed in the emergency room overnight and was released the next day. He suffered "a number of puncture wounds to his chest, forearm, [and] triceps area," a fractured mandible, and abrasions to his forehead, upper jaw, and left knee.¹

In connection with the attack on P.R., on September 4, 2020, Caraballo pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, aiding and abetting, and possessing contraband in prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(2)-(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). After Caraballo entered his guilty plea, a U.S. Probation Officer prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (the "Report") for Caraballo. Using the Guidelines, the Probation Officer calculated Caraballo's total offense level as 20. The total offense level included a five-level sentencing enhancement under Section 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) of the Guidelines due to a finding that P.R. sustained serious bodily injury. Based on a total offense level of 20 and Caraballo's criminal history category of V, the Probation Officer calculated a Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months.

Caraballo made several objections to the Report, including to the five-level sentencing enhancement under Section 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) for causing serious bodily injury. At Caraballo's May 12, 2022 sentencing hearing, the District Court overruled the objection to the five-level enhancement:

As [the Government] has pointed out, [P.R.] was stabbed three times, once in the anterior chest, which is an injury that's difficult for me to characterize as just bodily injury rather than serious injury, and in addition to that, he had a broken jaw.

Now, the case law that I've looked at, for example, [United States v. Snider, 976 F.2d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992)], holds that a broken jaw is serious bodily injury under the applicable guideline of [2A2.2(b)(3)(B)], and I'm inclined to agree with that case and the others that I've looked at that what happened here is that [P.R.] had inflicted upon him serious bodily injury.

It's hard for me to look past the fact that a shank was used, in connection with this injury, it's hard for me to look past the fact one of the stab wounds was to the anterior chest, which, I think, everyone would agree, to the extent that there's a penetration of that area of the body, you are, at least, exposing the victim to the prospect of serious bodily injury or death.

And as far as what was actually sustained here, there's no question that, beyond the bruises and cuts, there were puncture wounds, three, and a broken jaw, so, again, while I respect your argument, I think that the facts support a finding that the Probation Office's assessment that there was serious bodily injury here is correct. And on that basis, I'll have to overrule your objection.

App. 59-60.

After ruling on Caraballo's various objections to the Report, the District Court noted for the record that the Guidelines range for imprisonment purposes was 63 to 78 months. The District Court then considered the various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and determined that Caraballo should be sentenced on the low end of the range, or 63 months. The District Court entered the judgment on May 13, 2022. This timely appeal followed.

II. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Two different standards of review are applicable to this appeal.² First, we exercise plenary review over legal questions, including the interpretation of the Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Poulson, 871 F.3d 261, 270 (3d Cir. 2017) (collecting cases); United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th 459, 468 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (citing United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80, 83 (3d Cir. 2018)). Thus, we exercise plenary review over the meaning of the phrase serious bodily injury in the relevant guideline.

Plenary review requires us to review the question anew without giving deference to the District Court's assessment or interpretation. See, e.g., Kengerski v. Harper, 6 F.4th 531, 536 (3d Cir. 2021) ("Our review on appeal is plenary, which means we review each element anew."); Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Enserch Energy Servs., Inc., 409 F.3d 574, 579 (3d Cir. 2005) ("Thus, we owe no deference to the District Court's analysis, and instead we exercise plenary review over the District Court's decision . . . .").

Second, the standard of review for the District Court's application of the Guidelines to the facts "depends on the nature of the question presented." Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 63, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 98, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). "[A] more deferential standard of review is appropriate where, as here, we consider a district court's application of the Guidelines to a specific set of facts, that is, where the district court determined whether the facts 'fit' within what the Guidelines prescribe." United States v. Richards, 674 F.3d 215, 219 (3d Cir. 2012). "[W]hen the legal issue involves 'a "strictly factual test," such that once the test is stated no legal reasoning is necessary to the resolution of the issue,' " the determination should be reviewed for clear error. Id. at 221 (quoting United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638, 644 (3d Cir. 2011)); see also, e.g., United States v. Perez-Colon, 62 F.4th 805, 812 (3d Cir. 2023) ("Finally, like in Richards 'our role is more appropriately described as determining whether the District Court clearly erred in its determination that the facts fit within the meaning of [the relevant Guideline], rather than whether it abused its discretion by adopting one set of factual findings instead of another.' " (quoting Richards, 674 F.3d at 223)). The question presented here is whether the victim suffered bodily injury or serious bodily injury based on how P.R.'s injuries fit within the meaning of those terms in the Guidelines. Therefore, the standard of review for the District Court's application of the Guidelines to the facts is clear error.

"We find clear error if, when reviewing the entire record, we are 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " United States v. Napolitan, 762 F.3d 297, 307 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Kulick, 629 F.3d 165, 168 (3d Cir. 2010)). "If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

III. DISCUSSION

Appellate review of a criminal sentence is, at the broadest level, a two-step process. First, the appellate court must ensure that the district court made no significant procedural errors, and second, assuming no significant procedural errors occurred, the appellate court must consider the sentence's substantive reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Failure to properly calculate the Guidelines range constitutes a significant procedural error. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, — U.S. —, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904, 201 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018) (quoting Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 537, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013)); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Caraballo challenges his sentence on a single ground: the District Court failed to properly calculate his Guidelines range by applying a serious bodily injury sentencing enhancement rather than a...