844 F.3d 152 (3rd Cir. 2016), 15-1609, United States v. Galati
| Citation | 844 F.3d 152 |
| Opinion Judge | ROTH, Circuit Judge |
| Party Name | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RONALD GALATI, Appellant |
| Attorney | For Appellant: Brett G. Sweitzer, Esquire (Argued), Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. For Appellee: Mark E. Coyne, Esquire (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ. |
| Judge Panel | Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge[*], JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges. |
| Case Date | December 19, 2016 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Page 152
Argued April 28, 2016
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D. C. Criminal No. 1-14-cr-00173-001). District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez.
For Appellant: Brett G. Sweitzer, Esquire (Argued), Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
For Appellee: Mark E. Coyne, Esquire (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ.
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge[*], JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
Page 153
ROTH, Circuit Judge
After an eight day trial, a jury found that Ronald Galati had participated in a murder-for-hire scheme that culminated with the intended victim, Andrew Tuono, being shot in his hand, pelvis, and lower back. Galati was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § § 924(c) and 924(o) for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and related to a crime of violence and conspiring to do the same. Galati appeals these convictions and asks us to find that using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958, is not a " crime of violence." Following our decision in United States v. Robinson,1 we will look at all of Galati's contemporaneous convictions in determining whether or not he has aided and abetted the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. Based on the facts found by the jury, Galati committed a crime of violence. Accordingly, we will affirm his convictions.
I
.
On November 30, 2013, two masked gunmen fired shots outside the Atlantic City home of Andrew Tuono. Both Tuono and Tiffany Galati, Tuono's girlfriend and Ronald Galati's daughter, were present at the time of the shooting. While Tiffany was unharmed, Tuono was struck in his hand, pelvis, and lower back. As the gunmen fled, they were quickly apprehended by police. After their apprehension, the gunmen claimed they had been hired Ronald Galati to kill Tuono. On April 2, 2014, a grand jury in the District of New Jersey returned an indictment charging Galati and Jerome Johnson with one count of soliciting murder for hire resulting in personal injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958; one count of causing a firearm to be discharged in the commission of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2 and 924(c); and two counts of conspiring to commit the aforementioned offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 924(o) and 1958.
At trial, Johnson and the two gunmen, who had pled guilty, testified against Galati. According to the gunmen, Galati provided information as to where Tuono could be found and promised to pay if he were killed. Johnson testified that Galati telephoned Johnson on the day of the planned murder to tell him that Tuono was in Atlantic City. Johnson promptly drove the gunmen from Philadelphia to Atlantic City.
The jury returned a verdict finding Galati guilty on all counts. Galati appealed.
II
.
The only issue Galati has raised on appeal is whether he was wrongly convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) of aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence and under 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) of conspiring to do the same.2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to
Page 154
18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III
.
Galati's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) required a showing that he aided and abetted the knowing and willful discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a " crime of violence." He now advances the argument that his participation in a murder-for-hire scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 is not a crime of violence and therefore his conviction under § 924(c) cannot stand. Because Galati did not raise any objections below, we will review for plain error.3
Section 924(c) offers two alternative definitions for " crime of violence." The first definition encompasses crimes that have " the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" as one of their elements (the " elements clause" ).4 The second definition covers crimes that involve " a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense" (the " residual clause" ).5 Galati argues that violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 is not a crime of violence under the elements clause and that the residual clause is void for vagueness in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States.6
We recently explored the boundaries of what constitutes a " crime of violence" under § 924(c) in United States v. Robinson.7 Robinson involved a defendant convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, who had concurrently been charged with brandishing a firearm during a crime of...
To continue reading
Request your trial