NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-2123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KELLIE JOHNSON
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2:09-CR-00698-001
District Judge: The Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 14, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 14, 2010)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Kellie Johnson was employed by the Department of Homeland Security as a
Transportation Security Officer at the Philadelphia International Airport. On October
1
22, 2009, during an explosive trace detection screening conducted at a security
checkpoint, Johnson took a $100 bill from a passenger’s purse. The passenger
discovered the missing money and reported it. Johnson admitted that she had taken
the money, and she was charged with the misdemeanor of theft by a government
employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 654. After pleading guilty in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Johnson was sentenced to “6
months (term of imprisonment to be served in a halfway house).”
Johnson appealed.1 Instead of serving her sentence in a halfway house,
Johnson was incarcerated at the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center. She contends
that her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.2 In her view, there
are three procedural errors. First, she contends that the District Court erred because
the terminology used in imposing the sentence prevents the sentence of a six month
term in a halfway house from being fulfilled. Second, Johnson asserts that the Court
improperly applied the specific offense characteristic in USSG § 2B1.1(b)(3) for
“theft from the person of another,” thereby erroneously increasing her offense level
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Appellate
jurisdiction exists pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
We review claims of procedural and substantive unreasonableness for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en
banc). An abuse of discretion exists “if a district court based its decision on a
clearly erroneous factual conclusion or an erroneous legal conclusion.” Id. at 567-
68.
2
by two points. Her third assertion of error is that the Court’s factual finding that she
“compromis[ed] the safety of the nation’s travelers” is unsupported by the record.
We agree that the sentence was subject to procedural error. The District Court
expressed its intent to sentence Johnson to six months imprisonment, but first
afforded defense counsel and Johnson an opportunity to speak. After hearing their
statements, the District Court declared “[n]ow, based upon the request of your
counsel and the acquiescence of counsel for the Government, I will allow this period
of imprisonment to be served in a halfway house, that [is] to be determined and
established by the Bureau of Prisons.” Immediately after explaining that Johnson
had a right to appeal her sentence, the District Court reiterated that the sentence was
to be served in a halfway house. Despite defense counsel’s request that the Court
impose a six month period of probation, with placement in a halfway house as a
condition of that probation, the Court decided to “leave the sentence as imposed.”
The District Judge directed his courtoom deputy to “conduct an investigation to make
sure that the sentence can be carried out as I’ve ... ordered it.” Consistent with the
Court’s oral decree, the judgment stated that the defendant was sentenced to “6
months (terms of imprisonment to be served in a halfway house).” Johnson, however,
is currently serving her sentence in a federal detention center. This is the result of a
procedural error by the District Court which “fail[ed] to adequately explain the
chosen sentence” of 6 months “to be served in a halfway house.” See Tomko, 562
3
F.3d at 567 (citing the failure to adequately explain the chosen sentence as an
example of a procedural error). We will vacate the sentence and remand for
resentencing so the intent of the Court may be effectuated.
Johnson also contends that the District Court erred by increasing her offense
level by two points for the specific offense characteristic in USSG § 2B1.1(b)(3). We
agree that this specific offense characteristic should not have been applied as the theft
did not occur within arms’ reach of the victim, and therefore did not present the
potential for violence or physical injury contemplated by that guideline. See United
States v. Pizarro-Berrios, 448 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Londono,
285 F.3d 348, 353-54 (5th Cir. 2002). Johnson did not object to this assessment
before the District Court, and we would normally require a showing of plain error
before granting relief. But because we have already determined that the sentence
must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing, we note this error so that
it does not recur during the sentencing process on remand.
Johnson’s third claim of procedural error concerns the District Court’s
evaluation of the seriousness of her criminal offense. She contends that the factual
finding that she compromised the safety of the nation’s travelers is unsupported. We
agree. Our review of the record did not reveal any factual support for this finding.
Because we have determined that the District Court committed procedural error
in sentencing Johnson, we will vacate her sentence and remand this matter for
4
resentencing.3
3
Accordingly, we need not address Johnson’s claim that her sentence is
also substantively unreasonable.
5