U.S. v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 14 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1497,1497 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Albert HUDSON, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 92-1057. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Peter Norling, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., Edward Mechmann, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
David A. Lewis, New York City (The Legal Aid Soc., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before: PRATT and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, District Judge. *
Defendant-appellant Albert Hudson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John R. Bartels, Judge ), following Hudson's plea of guilty to assaulting United States Deputy Marshals with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (1988). In sentencing Hudson, the district judge classified the offense as "Aggravated Assault", pursuant to § 2A2.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"), rather than as "Obstructing or Impeding Officers" while possessing a dangerous weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b), because Hudson had in fact used a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(c)(1). As a result, Hudson's base offense level was effectively raised from 6 to 15. Compare U.S.S.G. §§ 2A2.2 and 2A2.4. The district court also imposed a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2), because Hudson "otherwise used" a dangerous weapon in committing his offense, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 19.
On appeal, Hudson's sole contention is that the four level enhancement to his base offense level, because he "otherwise used" a dangerous weapon, was impermissible double counting, since the use of the dangerous weapon had already resulted in an increase in the base offense level by making the crime an aggravated assault. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
On February 21, 1991, a team of United States Deputy Marshals was attempting to arrest Albert Hudson on two outstanding warrants when they observed his car parked in Brooklyn, New York. When Hudson came outside and got into his car, the marshals tried to block his escape. The marshals identified themselves and ordered Hudson to get out of the car. Instead of obeying this order, Hudson drove his car directly at two marshals. The marshals jumped out of the path of Hudson's approaching car, but were able to arrest Hudson when he inadvertently ran his vehicle into a parked van.
Hudson subsequently entered a plea of guilty to one count of assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (1988) before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Because the Probation Department determined that Hudson had used a dangerous weapon--the automobile--with intent to harm the marshals, its Presentence Report ("PSR") treated his offense as an "Aggravated Assault" under the Sentencing Guidelines. Hudson's base level for this offense was 15. See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(a). The alternative Guidelines application would have been to characterize Hudson's offense as "Obstructing or Impeding Officers" while possessing and threatening the use of a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(b)(1). This latter construction would have carried a base offense level of 6 and an adjusted offense level of 9. Id. The Probation Department rejected this alternative on the ground that Hudson's use of his car as a dangerous weapon constituted an aggravated assault. See U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4(c).
In addition to raising the base offense level by making the crime an aggravated assault, Hudson's use of the car also caused the PSR to recommend a further four-level increase to level 19, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2), because Hudson had Prior to sentencing, Hudson objected to the Guidelines calculation in the PSR. According to Hudson, the Probation Department applied the incorrect offense guideline because he did not intend to do bodily harm to the officers, but intended merely to frighten them. Therefore, Hudson contended that U.S.S.G. § 2A2.3 (Minor Assault) rather than U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 should apply.
"otherwise used" a dangerous weapon in commission of the offense. "Otherwise used" is defined as conduct that "did not amount to the discharge of a firearm but was more than brandishing, displaying, or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon." See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (1.g.). The PSR also recommended that Hudson be credited with the standard two-level reduction for "Acceptance of Responsibility", pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, resulting in a total offense level of 17. Because Hudson had only one prior conviction, for petit larceny, his criminal history category was determined to be Category I. This produced a Guidelines range of 24-30 months.
At sentencing, the district court rejected Hudson's argument and accepted the Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months computed by the Probation Department. According to the district court, Hudson's conduct constituted aggravated assault because "the reasonable inference is that this defendant intended to harm the marshals." Hudson was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months, to be followed by three years' supervised release.
Hudson now appeals to challenge the propriety of this sentence.
On appeal, Hudson argues that the addition of four levels to his base offense level because he "otherwise used" a dangerous weapon was impermissible double counting. Specifically, Hudson contends that since the use of the dangerous weapon had already resulted in an increase in the base offense level by making the crime an aggravated assault, it was unfair to penalize him again for use of a weapon by upwardly adjusting his offense level.
Hudson did not raise the present objection to his sentence before the district court. Consequently, a threshold issue is whether he has waived his "double counting" argument. The issue raised by Hudson on appeal is a difficult question that has only been addressed by one recent case in the Fourth Circuit. See United States v. Williams, 954 F.2d 204 (4th Cir.1992) (Wilkinson, J.). Consequently, we believe that Hudson has raised a novel issue that should be addressed on its merits. See, e.g., United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1203 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3029, 120 L.Ed.2d 900 (1992). Because the issue on appeal involves a purely legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, our review is de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Liranzo, 944 F.2d 73, 79 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Irabor, 894 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir.1990).
Hudson argues that his use of an automobile as a dangerous weapon is distinguishable from the more usual case in which the weapon in question is a gun. According to Hudson, while the Sentencing Guidelines provide a logical framework for assaults involving inherently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U. S. v. Farrow
...out, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reached precisely this conclusion under factually similar circumstances. In United States v. Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1992), the defendant, Albert Hudson, drove his car at two U.S. Marshals who were attempting to arrest him on two outstanding wa......
-
U.S. v. Reese
...a four-level increase, and "Permanent or Life-Threatening Bodily Injury" a six-level increase.32 We are aware that in United States v. Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir.1992), the Second Circuit held that impermissible double counting had occurred where the use of a dangerous weapon was relied u......
-
U.S. v. Beith, 03-2530.
...Williams, 954 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir.1992). But see United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 195 (6th Cir.1999) and United States v. Hudson, 972 F.2d 504, 506-07 (2d Cir.1992) (finding double counting when a defendant is sentenced under the aggravated assault guideline based on the "involveme......
-
U.S.A v. Sabhnani
...double counting). United States v. Hudson, 972 F.2d 504 (2d Cir.1992), on which Varsha principally relies, is not to the contrary. In Hudson, the defendant drove his car directly towards two U.S. Marshals in an attempt escape from them. Id. at 505. The district court found that the defendan......