NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________
No. 10-1382
_________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BYRON BEDELL,
Appellant
________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 4-08-cr-00299-001)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
_______
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 24, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
and POLLAK,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: October 28, 2011)
______
OPINION
______
*
Hon. Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Byron Bedell was convicted by a jury of assault on a correctional employee in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b), and resisting and impeding correctional
employees in violation of § 111(a)(1). The Court imposed a middle-of-the-range
sentence of 106 months imprisonment for the assault on a correctional employee charge
and 12 months for resisting and impeding correctional employees, to be served
concurrently. Bedell asks this court to vacate his convictions and remand for a new trial.
In the alternative, he challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. We will affirm.1
Bedell contends that the District Court erred when it denied his motion in limine to
exclude evidence regarding his prior disciplinary violations while incarcerated at various
correctional institutions. This argument is unavailing. The District Court concluded that
evidence of Bedell’s prior bad acts could be introduced for several permissible purposes
(including motive, intent, and absence of mistake) under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and that it
was relevant under Rule 402. The District Court also concluded that the evidence was
more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403, and that a limiting instruction could
minimize any potential for unfair prejudice. The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in this regard. See United States v. Cruz, 326 F.3d 392, 394-95 (3d Cir. 2003).
Next, Bedell contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. Although we
generally defer a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to collateral attack brought
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we may address such claims on direct appeal “when the
record is sufficient to allow determination of the issue.” United States v. Thornton, 327
F.3d 268, 271 (3d Cir. 2003). Bedell claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to
move for a mistrial or request sanctions after the Government sought to introduce a
videotape that was allegedly withheld during discovery. The video depicted Bedell being
moved into his cell prior to the incident for which he was being tried and was introduced
by the Government to impeach Bedell’s testimony that he had never worn a soft hand
restraint and that he did not have a mattress in his cell. Because the video did not contain
any exculpatory evidence, the Government was not obliged to produce it prior to trial
under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Nevertheless, out of an abundance of
caution, the District Court sustained trial counsel’s objection to the video on discovery
violation grounds and excluded the video from the jury’s view during the trial.2 Bedell
has provided no explanation how pre-trial disclosure would have aided in the preparation
of his defense and his ineffective assistance claim fails. In other words, he has alleged
neither deficient performance on the part of his counsel nor prejudice.
Finally, with respect to Bedell’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence,
we are satisfied that the District Court adequately considered the applicable § 3553(a)
factors in sentencing Bedell. See United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir.
2
Bedell’s trial counsel has since acknowledged in a sworn affidavit that he
mistakenly told the District Court that he did not receive a copy of the video before trial
when in fact he had received the video. The affidavit was not part of the District Court
record, but it appears at the back of Appellee’s brief.
3
2009) (en banc) (we will affirm sentence “unless no reasonable sentencing court would
have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district
court provided”). Based on the foregoing, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of
conviction and sentence.
4