Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-22-2006
USA v. Jarrett
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2475
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Jarrett" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1071.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1071
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
TODD M. JARRETT,
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-cr-00053 )
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 17, 2006
Before: RENDELL, Van ANTWERPEN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Filed May 22, 2006
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to fifty-seven-
months imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
1
In calculating the Guidelines range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months,
the District Court determined that a 1990 conviction for indecent assault was not a crime
of violence under section 4B1.2(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. However, the
District Court concluded that a conviction entered at the same time for corruption of a
minor qualified as a crime of violence.
Section 4B1.2(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines defines a crime of
violence as an offense under state or federal law punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, that
“(1) has as an element, the use, attempted use or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another; or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use
of explosives or otherwise involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
The District Court found that the state court information to which defendant
had pleaded guilty charged that he had, or attempted to have, indecent contact with a
child under the age of eighteen. The state offense carried a maximum sentence of five
years imprisonment.
After concluding his review of the Guidelines computation, the district
judge, recognizing the discretionary nature of post-Booker sentencing, announced that the
Guideline would be only “a factor” in the sentence in addition to an independent analysis
of the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2
Defendant appealed, contending that the state offense does not, by its
nature, present a serious potential risk of physical injury, and that by ruling that the state
offense constituted a crime of violence, the District Court created a mandatory
presumption that violates Due Process and the Sixth Amendment. The Court exercises
plenary review over the District Court’s resolution of these issues. United States v.
Sczubelek, 402 F.3d 175, 178 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Dorsey, 174 F.3d 331, 332
(3d Cir. 1999).
We have reviewed the comprehensive and thorough Memoranda of the
District Court. Bearing in mind that our task is to determine whether the sentence was
reasonable, we conclude that it meets that standard. We find no violation of any
constitutional right.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3