United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued March 14, 2002 Decided August 6, 2002
Nos. 01-3032 & 01-3033
United States of America,
Appellee
v.
Leon A. Samuel,
Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 98cr00070-01)
(No. 99cr00335-01)
Mary M. Petras, appointed by the court, argued the cause
and filed the briefs for appellant.
John K. Han, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause
for appellee. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Wain-
stein, U.S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed, John R.
Fisher, Mary-Patrice Brown, and Thomas C. Black, Assis-
tant U.S. Attorneys.
Before: Sentelle, Rogers, and Garland, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Garland.
Garland, Circuit Judge: The sentence imposed by the
district court in this case included an upward adjustment
because the defendant, Leon Samuel, committed an offense
while on release for another crime. Samuel contends that
this sentencing enhancement violated the rule, announced by
the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, that "any fact
that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory
maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt." 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Samuel argues
that his sentence contravenes Apprendi because the fact that
he was on release at the time of the second crime was neither
proved to a jury nor specified in his plea agreement. We
reject this argument and affirm the judgment of the district
court.
I
On January 22, 1998, Samuel attempted to sell crack co-
caine to an undercover agent of the Drug Enforcement
Administration. He was arrested and charged with conspira-
cy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of cocaine base, a violation of 21 U.S.C. s 846.
Samuel pled guilty to that offense on March 26, 1998, and was
released pending sentencing by the district court. While on
release, Samuel was again arrested on a narcotics charge.
This time, the arrest followed an investigation by the Cus-
toms Service. On September 1, 1999, Samuel was taken into
custody and subsequently indicted for possessing with intent
to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine, a violation of 21
U.S.C. s 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). On July 18, 2000, Samu-
el pled guilty to that charge as well.
On February 22, 2001, the district court sentenced Samuel
for both crimes. Although the maximum statutory sentence
for a person convicted of a drug crime involving 50 grams or
more of cocaine base is life imprisonment,1 the court's applica-
tion of the United States Sentencing Guidelines2 resulted in a
lower sentence. Based solely on the weight of the drugs
involved and certain applicable adjustments, Samuel's guide-
lines offense level would have been 31. This, together with
his criminal history category of I, would have yielded a
guideline sentencing range of 108-135 months. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") ch. 5, pt. A.
However, because Samuel committed his second offense while
on release pending sentencing, Guideline s 2J1.7 ("Commis-
sion of Offense While on Release") dictated a three-level
increase in his offense level, which resulted in a range of 151-
188 months. The government recommended, and the court
imposed, a sentence at the bottom of that range: concurrent
terms of 151 months for each of his two convictions. Follow-
ing the instruction of s 2J1.7, cmt. n.2, the court apportioned
that total sentence as follows: 108 months for the drug
crimes, plus an additional 43 months attributable to the
enhancement for committing an offense while on release.3
__________
1 See 21 U.S.C. ss 846, 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(iii). These provi-
sions also provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years.
However, the district court found that Samuel met the criteria of 18
U.S.C. s 3553(f), which permits a court in specified circumstances
to "impose a sentence pursuant to [the applicable guidelines] with-
out regard to any statutory minimum sentence." See also U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") s 5C1.2(a).
2 The district court used the 1998 edition of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which is the edition to which we
refer in this opinion.
3 Note 2 of Guideline s 2J1.7 states that the sentencing court
"should divide the sentence on the judgment form between the
sentence attributable to the underlying offense and the sentence
attributable to the enhancement." U.S.S.G. s 2J1.7, cmt. n.2. The
court must, however, "ensure that the 'total punishment' (i.e., the
sentence for the offense committed while on release plus the
sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. s 3147) is in accord with the
guideline range for the offense committed while on release, as
adjusted by the enhancement in this section." Id.
At his sentencing hearing, Samuel unsuccessfully objected
to the 43-month enhancement on the ground that it was
barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi. Samu-
el raises the Apprendi claim again on appeal. Because he
made the appropriate objection in the district court, we
review that claim under the harmless error standard of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a). To reverse a
conviction under that standard, "there must be (1) error, (2)
that 'affect[s] substantial rights'--i.e., that is prejudicial."
United States v. Perkins, 161 F.3d 66, 72 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 734). We
consider the first question, whether the district court commit-
ted constitutional error in enhancing Samuel's sentence, de
novo. See United States v. Glover, 153 F.3d 749, 757 (D.C.
Cir. 1998); United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250, 1272
(11th Cir. 2001).4
II
In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held:
"Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maxi-
mum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.... [I]t is unconstitutional for a legislature
to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase
the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defen-
dant is exposed." 530 U.S. at 490 (internal quotation marks
omitted); see Ring v. Arizona, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 2432 (2002).
This court and the other courts of appeals have held that
Apprendi's rule does not apply to offense characteristics that
enhance a defendant's sentence under the Sentencing Guide-
__________
4 In addition to his Apprendi argument, Samuel argued in the
district court and reasserts here that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. s 3B1.2,
his offense level should have been reduced by two levels because he
was only a minor participant in the second offense. As we have
previously said, "[t]he application of section 3B1.2 is inherently fact-
bound and largely committed to the discretion of the trial judge."
United States v. Caballero, 936 F.2d 1292, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
We have examined Samuel's arguments and the record evidence
and discern no abuse of discretion by the district court.
lines, but that do not increase the sentence above the statuto-
ry maximum for the offense of conviction. See United States
v. Webb, 255 F.3d 890, 896 (D.C. Cir. 2001); United States v.
Fields, 251 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (collecting
other circuits' cases); In re Sealed Case, 246 F.3d 696, 698-99
(D.C. Cir. 2001).5 Samuel does not dispute that view and,
just last month, the Supreme Court confirmed it. See Harris
v. United States, 122 S. Ct. at 2406, 2420 (2002); id. at 2415,
2418-19 (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J.); id. at 2420-21
(Breyer, J., concurring).
Samuel contends, however, that s 2J1.7 is unlike other
Sentencing Guidelines enhancements because it does not in-
dependently increase a defendant's offense level, but rather
does so only by reference to the violation of another statutory
provision: 18 U.S.C. s 3147. Guideline s 2J1.7 states:
If an enhancement under 18 U.S.C. s 3147 applies, add 3
levels to the offense level for the offense committed while
on release as if this section were a specific offense
characteristic contained in the offense guideline for the
offense committed while on release.
Section 3147, in turn, provides:
A person convicted of an offense while released under
this chapter shall be sentenced, in addition to the sen-
tence prescribed for the offense to--
(1) a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years
if the offense is a felony....
18 U.S.C. s 3147. Samuel contends that, because s 2J1.7
applies only "[i]f an enhancement under 18 U.S.C. s 3147
applies," a district court may not apply the three-level en-
hancement without first finding that the defendant violated 18
U.S.C. s 3147. Such a finding, he insists, requires either a
jury verdict or an express plea to having committed the
offense while on release--neither of which occurred here.
__________
5 See also Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 481 ("We should be clear that
nothing in this history suggests that it is impermissible for judges
to exercise discretion--taking into consideration various factors
relating both to offense and offender--in imposing a judgment
within the range prescribed by statute.").
Samuel further contends that, as a result of the court's
application of s 2J1.7, he was sentenced to 43 months more
than he would have been sentenced on the drug crimes to
which he did plead, and exposed to a penalty of up to 10 years
more than the statutory maximum for those crimes. All of
this, he argues, violates the rule of Apprendi.
In response to Samuel's contentions, the government first
asserts that 18 U.S.C. s 3147 is not an offense at all, but
merely a sentencing provision that applies to convictions for
other offenses. We are not so sure. Although we have found
no reported case in which the government charged a defen-
dant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. s 3147, that section is not
dissimilar in structure to 18 U.S.C. s 924(c), a provision that
is often charged as a separate offense.6 Moreover, the legis-
lative history of s 3147 is ambiguous as to whether the
section authorizes an independent criminal offense.7
__________
6 18 U.S.C. s 924(c)(1)(A)(i) states:
... [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a
firearm ... shall, in addition to the punishment for such
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime--
(I) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than
5 years....
7 The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 initially enacted
a version of s 3147 like that now in force, except that it provided for
"a term of imprisonment of not less than two years and not more
than ten years if the offense is a felony." Pub. L. No. 98-473, tit.
II, s 203(a), 98 Stat. 1976, 1983 (emphasis added). Congress
simultaneously provided, however, that s 3147 would be amended
by deleting the italicized phrase upon implementation of the Sen-
tencing Guidelines. See Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L.
No. 98-473, tit. II, ch. 2, ss 222(g), 235(a)(1), 98 Stat. 1987, 2028-29,
2031-32. The Senate Report states that this amendment "elimi-
nat[es] the mandatory nature of the penalties in favor of utilizing
sentencing guidelines." S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 186 (1983). Al-
though the Sentencing Commission interprets this language as
indicating that "18 U.S.C. s 3147 is an enhancement provision,
rather than an offense," U.S.S.G. s 2J1.7, cmt. n.1; see id. at cmt.
background, the language could as easily be read as authorizing a
But whether or not Samuel could have been separately
charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. s 3147, the fact is that
he was not. Both the indictment and the judgment refer only
to the narcotics offenses to which Samuel pled guilty. Hence,
Samuel's record does not reflect a conviction for a crime to
which he neither pled nor was convicted. Instead, the district
court merely sentenced him under the Sentencing Guidelines
for the narcotics offenses to which he did plead, considering
the fact that Samuel committed an offense while on release
just as the court would have considered any other specific
offense characteristic that adjusts an offense level upward.
See U.S.S.G. ch. 2, introductory cmt. (noting that "[e]ach
offense has a corresponding base offense level and may have
one or more specific offense characteristics that adjust the
offense level upward or downward").8
Samuel argues that Guideline s 2J1.7 is not an ordinary
sentencing enhancement. Rather, because it applies only "[i]f
an enhancement under 18 U.S.C. s 3147 applies," Samuel
contends that a predicate for a s 2J1.7 enhancement is a
conviction for violating s 3147. But that view ignores the
balance of the language of s 2J1.7, which directs the court to
"add 3 levels to the offense level for the offense committed
while on release as if this section were a specific offense
characteristic contained in the offense guideline for the of-
fense committed while on release." U.S.S.G. s 2J1.7 (empha-
sis added). Moreover, Samuel's position is contrary to the
view of the Sentencing Commission, which treats "18 U.S.C.
s 3147 [as] an enhancement provision, rather than an of-
fense," and explains that Guideline s 2J1.7 merely "provides
a specific offense characteristic to increase the offense level
for the offense committed while on release." U.S.S.G.
s 2J1.7, cmt. n.1. The Sentencing Commission's interpreta-
tion of its own guideline is binding on this court, unless that
interpretation violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or
__________
separate offense, the penalty for which is determined by the guide-
lines without reference to the previous two-year mandatory mini-
mum.
8 See, e.g., U.S.S.G. s 2D1.1(b)(1) (listing possession of a firearm
as a specific offense characteristic, and increasing the offense level
for drug offenses if the defendant possessed a firearm).
is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of the
guideline. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).
None of those caveats applies.9
The fact that the offense characteristic at issue here--
committing the offense while on release for another crime--is
specified by statute does not disturb our conclusion. See
Harris, 122 S. Ct. at 2419 (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J.)
("The judge may select any sentence within the range, based
on facts not alleged in the indictment or proved to the jury--
even if those facts are specified by the legislature, and even if
they persuade the judge to choose a much higher sentence
than he or she otherwise would have imposed." (emphasis
added)); see id. at 2420 (Breyer, J., concurring).10 Nor does
it matter that the offense characteristic may also be treated
as an independent crime.11 To the contrary, many of the
offense characteristics that enhance offense levels under the
guidelines may be charged as separate crimes.12 In Sealed
__________
9 Although the Commission's interpretation of Guideline s 2J1.7
is binding on us, its view of whether 18 U.S.C. s 3147 may be
charged as an independent crime is not. However, as discussed
above, we do not need to decide whether s 3147 could be charged
as an independent offense in order to decide this case. See supra
note 7 and accompanying text.
10 See also 28 U.S.C. s 994(h) (directing the Sentencing Commis-
sion to assure that the guidelines include terms of imprisonment "at
or near the maximum term authorized" for categories of defendants
specified in the statute); Federal Criminal Code and Rules 1283-
97 (West 2002) (collecting session laws that, inter alia, direct the
Sentencing Commission to include specified sentencing enhance-
ments in the guidelines).
11 Cf. Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 397 (1995) (holding
that when uncharged conduct is used to arrive "at a sentence within
the statutorily authorized punishment range," the defendant "is
punished, for double jeopardy purposes, only for the offense of
which the defendant is convicted," notwithstanding that the un-
charged conduct may also constitute a distinct offense).
12 Compare, e.g., U.S.S.G. s 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) (increasing the offense
level for an aggravated assault if a firearm was used), with 18
Case, for example, the defendant pled guilty to unlawful
possession of a firearm, and the district court enhanced the
sentence (under U.S.S.G. s 2K2.1(b)) after finding that the
defendant had threatened to shoot someone with that firearm.
246 F.3d at 697-98. Although we noted that the threat was
"a separate felony," we nonetheless held Apprendi inapplica-
ble to the enhancement of the underlying offense. Id.
Finally, contrary to Samuel's contention, the district court's
application of s 2J1.7 neither increased his sentence above
the statutory maximum for the drug offenses to which he pled
guilty, nor exposed him to the possibility of such an increase.
The former point is obvious, as Samuel's actual sentence of
108 months was considerably lower than the statutory maxi-
mum sentence of life imprisonment applicable to each drug
offense. The latter point is equally obvious, as application of
Guideline s 2J1.7 could not have exposed Samuel to a sen-
tence greater than life in prison, as there is no greater
sentence (other than capital punishment) in the federal sys-
tem.13 Thus, the impact of s 2J1.7 was limited to determin-
__________
U.S.C. s 924(c)(1)(A) (making it unlawful to use or carry a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence); U.S.S.G. s 2B3.1(4),
(5) (increasing the offense level for robbery if kidnapping or car-
jacking was involved), with 18 U.S.C. s 1201 (defining the offense of
kidnapping), and id. s 2119 (defining the offense of carjacking);
U.S.S.G. s 3A1.2(b) (increasing the offense level for any offense if
the defendant assaulted a law enforcement officer during the of-
fense), with 18 U.S.C. s 111 (making it an offense to assault a
government officer); U.S.S.G. s 3B1.1 (increasing the offense level
for any offense if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants), with 18
U.S.C. s 371 (criminalizing conspiracy to commit any offense
against the United States); U.S.S.G. s 3C1.1 (increasing the offense
level for any offense if the defendant obstructed justice during the
course of the prosecution of the offense), with 18 U.S.C. s 1512(b)
(making it an offense to obstruct official proceedings).
13 Samuel contends that, as a consequence of 18 U.S.C. s 3147, he
was exposed to a sentence of life plus 10 years, rather than merely
to the statutory maximum of life. However, because Congress has
abolished parole for federal prisoners, see Sentencing Reform Act
ing where, within that statutory maximum, Samuel should be
sentenced.
Moreover, this limit upon s 2J1.7 applies not only to defen-
dants like Samuel, whose underlying offenses carry maximum
sentences of life, but also to defendants whose offenses of
conviction carry substantially lower statutory maxima. Un-
der the Sentencing Guidelines, a court may impose a sentence
anywhere within the applicable guideline range, "provided
that the sentence ... is not greater than the statutorily
authorized maximum sentence." U.S.S.G. s 5G1.1; see
Fields, 251 F.3d at 1046. The government contends, and we
agree, that this limit applies even though 18 U.S.C. s 3147(1)
states that a person convicted of an offense while on release
"shall be sentenced, in addition to the sentence prescribed
for the offense to ... a term of imprisonment of not more
than ten years" (emphasis added). Where a defendant has
not been separately convicted of an offense under s 3147, but
instead has merely had his offense level increased under
Guideline s 2J1.7, the Sentencing Guidelines decree that the
maximum term to which he may be sentenced is the maxi-
mum authorized for the underlying offense. See U.S.S.G.
s 5G1.1; see also id. s 2J1.7, cmt. background ("This guide-
line is drafted to enable the court to determine and imple-
ment a combined 'total punishment' consistent with the over-
all structure of the guidelines...."). Accordingly, application
of s 2J1.7 can neither increase a defendant's sentence above
the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction, nor
expose him to the possibility of such an increase.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district
court did not commit Apprendi error when it enhanced
Samuel's sentence because he committed the second of his
narcotics offenses while he was on release for the first. In
__________
s 218, 98 Stat. at 2027, neither we nor the government can discern
any difference between a sentence of life and a sentence of life plus
10 years--even if some trial judges have included such sentences in
their judgments. Nor does Samuel suggest any difference, other
than to speculate that someday Congress may pass a statute that
differentiates between the two.
reaching that conclusion, we note that we are in accord with
the other circuits that have addressed the question. See
United States v. Randall, 287 F.3d 27, 30-31 (1st Cir. 2002);
United States v. Ellis, 241 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. 2001);
see also United States v. Parolin, 239 F.3d 922, 930 (7th Cir.
2001) (on review for plain error).
We further note that, even if the enhancement of Samuel's
sentence were error under Apprendi, it would at most be
harmless error and hence not grounds for reversal. First,
because Samuel's actual sentence fell below the statutory
maximum for his drug trafficking offenses, Samuel was not
prejudiced by the alleged Apprendi error. See Webb, 255
F.3d at 898. Second, because Samuel did not and could not
contest the fact that he was on release at the time he
committed his second offense,14 his failure to plead to that
point expressly was likewise harmless, even if the fact that he
was on release were properly regarded as the equivalent of
an offense element. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,
19 (1999) (holding that the failure to submit an element to the
jury was harmless because the "defendant did not, and appar-
ently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted
element").
III
Leon Samuel asks this court to hold that, when the govern-
ment seeks to enhance a defendant's sentence for an offense
because he committed it while on release for an earlier crime,
that circumstance is functionally an element and must either
be proved to a jury or pled to by the defendant. Such a
ruling in Samuel's favor would grant him only a theoretical
__________
14 According to his plea, Samuel committed the second offense on
September 1, 1999. The district court's records reflect both that he
was released pending sentencing for the first offense on March 26,
1998, and that sentencing on that offense had not been completed
on September 1, 1999. Moreover, although Samuel's attorney
argued at sentencing that these facts had to be found by a jury, she
conceded that "the record is abundantly clear that he was on
release" at the time of the second offense. 2/16/01 Tr. at 21.
victory, as the evidence is incontrovertible that he was on
release at the time of his second offense. See supra note 14.
It could, however, be deeply damaging to other defendants,
because if the existence of that circumstance were the equiva-
lent of an element, the government would be permitted--
indeed required--to put before the jury facts that are unre-
lated to the underlying crime and normally regarded as quite
prejudicial. See United States v. Crowder, 141 F.3d 1202,
1203 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that a defendant cannot pre-
clude the government from introducing evidence establishing
an element of an offense by stipulating to that element).
Apprendi does not require us to impose such a burden
either on the government or on those it accuses of crimes.
Because Guideline s 2J1.7 does no more than direct the court
to the applicable sentencing range within the statutory maxi-
mum set by Congress, the fact that the defendant was on
release at the time of the offense may be found by the court
without recourse to a jury verdict or plea. The district court
therefore committed no error in sentencing Samuel, and the
judgment of that court is
Affirmed.