NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 12-2316
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL CASTELLI,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Crim. No. 2-92-00132-06)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 19, 2013
Before: AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.)
(Opinion filed: January 7, 2014)
________________
OPINION
________________
Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice (Retired), Supreme Court of the
United States, sitting by designation.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Appellant Daniel Castelli was charged with violating the terms of his supervised
release. In preparation for his revocation hearing, Castelli made various discovery
requests, all of which were denied. The District Court sentenced Castelli to two years’
imprisonment, to be followed by a new term of supervised release. He appeals,
contending that the Court’s denial of his discovery requests violated his right to due
process, and that its sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
I. Background
In September 1992, Castelli pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
“P2P” with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
The District Court sentenced Castelli to 240 months’ imprisonment, ten years of
supervised release, and a $10,000 criminal fine. He completed his custodial sentence
and, on September 18, 2009, began serving his term of supervised release. In December
2011, the Probation Office filed a Violation of Supervised Release (“VOSR”) petition,
contending that Castelli had violated his release conditions by: A) committing a new drug
offense (trafficking oxycodone); B) failing to make payments toward his fine; C) failing
to report for drug testing and failing to submit monthly supervision reports; D) submitting
multiple drug-positive urine specimens; and E) associating with convicted felons. The
Probation Office filed an amended violation of supervised release petition alleging two
additional violations – F) that Castelli was arrested for possessing two “baggies” of crack
cocaine, and G) that he had submitted additional drug-positive urine specimens. The
2
District Court scheduled a hearing. In preparation for it, Castelli filed several motions for
discovery. As noted, all were denied.
At the conclusion of that hearing, the District Court found that Castelli had
violated the conditions of his supervised release by engaging in drug trafficking, as
charged in section A of the VOSR petition; failing to report for drug testing, as charged
in section C of the petition; failing several drug tests, as charged in section D of the
petition and section G of the amended petition; associating with felons, as charged in
section E of the petition; and possessing crack cocaine, as charged in section F of the
amended petition. The Court revoked Castelli’s existing term of supervised release, and
sentenced him to a custodial term of 24 months to be followed by a seven-year term of
supervised release.
Castelli filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) alleging
that the District Court’s order that he serve a seven-year term of supervised release after
completing his custodial sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
The District Court denied the motion, and Castelli appeals. He reasserts his Ex Post Facto
Clause argument, and also contends that his due process rights were violated because he
did not receive adequate discovery during the revocation proceedings.1
II. Discussion
We review the District Court’s ruling on a discovery motion for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Liebert, 519 F.2d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 1973). We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s determination that its imposition of a seven-year
1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
3
term of supervised release to follow the 24-month term of reimprisonment did not violate
the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Brady, 88 F.3d 225, 227 (3d Cir. 1996).
A. Discovery Motions
Revocation of supervised release proceedings are subject to only “minimum
requirements of due process.” United States v. Maloney, 513 F.3d 350, 356 (3d Cir.
2008) (internal quotation omitted). With respect to discovery, due process and Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (which governs revocation of supervised release
proceedings) require only that a defendant receive “disclosure of the evidence against
him.” United States v. Derewal, 66 F.3d 52, 55 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(2)(B).
Here, the Government fully disclosed to Castelli the evidence it intended to use
against him at the revocation hearing. Sections A and E of the VOSR petition charged
Castelli with trafficking oxycodone and associating with felons. With regard to these
sections, the Government provided Castelli with recordings and summaries of his
intercepted telephone calls, copies of wiretap applications, copies of relevant surveillance
reports, and copies of oxycodone prescription records. It also relied on the testimony of
Agent Christopher Galletti of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. Because
Agent Galletti was unavailable on the hearing date, the Government introduced Galletti’s
previously videotaped deposition, in which Castelli and his counsel had participated.
Violations C and D of the VOSR petition and violation G of the amended petition
charged Castelli with failing to report for certain drug tests and testing positive during
other drug tests. The violation petitions informed Castelli of the dates of both the missed
4
and positive tests. Additionally, Probation Officer Carmen Vasquez-Ongay, who
testified at the hearing, gave Castelli – on the morning of the hearing – a log of test
results and a copy of the positive test reports. Castelli and his counsel had the
opportunity to examine these documents during the Court’s lunch recess, after which
Officer Vasquez-Ongay resumed her testimony. Violation F of the amended VOSR
petition related to Castelli’s arrest for possession of crack cocaine. Prior to the hearing,
the Government provided him with a copy of the arrest report prepared by the arresting
officer, Michael Policella. At the hearing, Officer Policella testified consistently with
that report. Thus, the record shows that, in accord with Rule 32.1(b)(2), the Government
timely provided Castelli with all the evidence against him relating to the alleged
violations of supervised release.
Castelli argues that he was entitled to “[r]eview the U.S. Probation Office’s file,
receive a copy of his Pre-Sentence Investigation Report . . ., and a more timely
production of the Drug Test Results being used against him.” Appellant’s Br. at 17.
He has, however, failed to identify any part of the Probation Office’s file that he was not
permitted to examine in time to defend adequately against the violation petition. Insofar
as he contends that he was entitled to review the entire Probation Office file, this
argument is contradicted by case law. See Derewal, 66 F.2d at 55 (nothing “require[s]
automatic production of a probation officer’s entire file, even where the officer is a
witness”).
Castelli, relying on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(3), next argues that
he was entitled to production of the presentence report that was prepared for his 1993
5
sentencing. As an initial matter, Rule 32 applies only to sentencing following a
conviction by a verdict or plea, not to sentencing in connection with revocation
proceedings. Unavailing is Castelli’s argument that he sought the presentence report “so
as to assess the legal basis for [his underlying] conviction as well as the possible
consequences of sentencing at the Revocation Hearing.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. The
validity of Castelli’s initial conviction, which had been final for nearly twenty years, was
not at issue in the revocation proceedings. Similarly, Castelli did not need to review the
presentence report to learn the classification of his initial offense and his criminal history
category because, as the District Court correctly noted, it could take judicial notice of that
information. See Supp. App. 2. Finally, though Castelli did not receive the Drug Test
Results until the day of the hearing, nothing in the record indicates that the documents
were lengthy or complex. Castelli and his counsel had over an hour to review the
documents prior to cross-examining Probation Officer Vasquez-Ongay, and at no time
during the proceeding did Castelli complain that this was insufficient time. Accordingly,
the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castelli’s motions for discovery.
Even if the District Court had erred in denying the discovery motions, Castelli is
not entitled to relief on appeal. He cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the District
Court’s order, especially in light of his own admission at the hearing that he had violated
various conditions of his supervised release. See App. at 52-53; see also United States v.
Davis, 397 F.3d 173, 178 (3d Cir. 2005) (prejudice that must be shown to justify reversal
for a discovery violation is a likelihood that verdict would have been different had
Government complied with discovery rules).
6
Ex Post Facto Clause
Castelli next argues that the District Court sentence violates the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 9, cl. 3 (“No . . . ex post facto Law shall
be passed”). When determining whether a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause
occurred, we consider whether a current law is more punitive than one in effect on the
date of the offense. See, e.g., Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2081 (2013).
Though Castelli’s brief is less than clear, the violation he seems to be identifying is the
District Court’s imposition of a second, seven-year term of supervised release after
Castelli’s 24-month reincarceration for violating the conditions of his first term of
supervised release. At the time Castelli committed his prior offense, former Section
3583(e) of Title 18 governed the penalties available on revocation of a supervised release
term. That section authorized a district court to
revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or
part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served
on postrelease supervision, if [the court] finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the person violated a condition of supervised release, pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that are applicable to
probation revocation and to the provisions of applicable policy statements issued
by the Sentencing Commission, except that a person whose term is revoked under
this paragraph may not be required to serve more than 3 years in prison if the
offense for which the person was convicted was a Class B felony, or more than 2
years in prison if the offense was a Class C or D felony.
The section was amended in 1994 to add a new subsection expressly permitting a district
court to impose an additional term of supervised release after revoking the prior term of
supervised release and sentencing a defendant to imprisonment:
Supervised release following revocation. – When a term of supervised release
is revoked and the defendant is required to serve a term of imprisonment, the court
7
may include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised
release after imprisonment. The length of such a term of supervised release shall
not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that
resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment
that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).
Castelli’s argument appears to be that, by revoking his supervised release and
sentencing him to imprisonment followed by an additional term of supervised release, the
District Court relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), a subsection that was enacted after
Castelli’s initial offense and sentencing. Accordingly, he contends that the District
Court’s sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. This argument is foreclosed by
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000). There the Supreme Court specifically
held that the version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) in effect at the time of Castelli’s sentencing
permitted a district court to impose a new term of supervised release after revocation and
imprisonment for violating an initial term of supervised release. Id. at 712-13. Thus,
Castelli’s argument that the District Court’s sentence implicates ex post facto concerns
fails.
For these reasons, we affirm.
8