Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-2-2006
USA v. Bass
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3134
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Bass" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 630.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/630
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3134
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
ERIC BASS,
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-cr-00447)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 14, 2006
Before: SMITH, WEIS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 2, 2006)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court sentenced defendant to
92 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and imposed a fine
1
of $1,500. The District Court also made the following statement directed to the Bureau of
Prisons: “the Court strongly recommends that defendant serve his incarceration at a
facility where he can get supervision for his mental problems.”
Defendant did not object to the sentence; therefore, this Court’s review is
for plain error. See United States v. Couch, 291 F.3d 251, 252 (3d Cir. 2002); United
States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir.2001).
On appeal, defendant contends that the District Court erred when it imposed
a sentence for the purposes of rehabilitation and treatment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
3582(a). That statutory section provides as follows:
“The court, in determining whether to impose a term of
imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be
imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider
the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an
appropriate means of promoting correction and
rehabilitation.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582. Defendant also asserts that the sentence is contrary to 28 U.S.C. §
994(k), which requires that the Sentencing Guidelines reflect the inappropriateness of
sentencing a defendant to imprisonment for the purpose of rehabilitation or providing
medical care, or for other correctional treatment. Finally, he cites section 5C1.1 of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines, Application Note 6, which suggests that community
confinement, rather than incarceration, should be considered “to accomplish a specific
2
treatment purpose ... in cases where the defendant's criminality is related to the treatment
problem ... and there is a reasonable likelihood that successful completion of the
treatment program will eliminate that problem.”
At the sentencing hearing, after denying a motion for a downward
departure, the District Court said the following
“[T]here’s no question that the offense is serious. That the
law is trying to create respect. I think that there has to be just
punishment for those possessing guns that shouldn’t possess
guns. I think there has to be the word out for deterrence. I
think most importantly that the public has to be protected.
I also think that the defendant may very well do
better in prison. ... I think that he will get ... psychiatric help,
and I am going to strongly recommend that the Bureau of
Prisons see that he’s placed somewhere where he can get
supervision as far as his mental problems are concerned.
However, taking all these things into
consideration, I think that the applicable sentence is at the
very lowest end of the guidelines ....”
The plain language of the provisions cited by defendant do not prohibit a
court from sentencing a defendant to imprisonment for proper reasons such as deterrence,
while also noting that mental health benefits might flow from the otherwise valid
imprisonment. Similarly, the provisions do not prohibit a sentencing court from
recommending to the Bureau of Prisons that otherwise valid imprisonment occur in an
3
environment that is beneficial to the defendant’s mental health. That is what occurred
here and it does not constitute plain error.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
4