Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Before
Torruella, Lynch, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
We therefore
found, inter alia, that Wright violated the terms of his release
by breaking state law.
See 18 U.S.C.
imprisonment.
Wright
raises
two
issues:
first,
he
challenges
the
- 2 -
I.
On review of an appeal of revocation of supervised
release, "we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government," and "we recognize the district court's broad legal
power to determine witness credibility."
Wright
contacted
mushrooms.
Later
Jonathan
that
Trayes
day,
to
Justin
pay
for
Corsaro
hallucinogenic
drove
Wright
in
Fay
Fay and
in motion, Wright released Trayes, whose leg was then run over by
the vehicle.
follows:
1. A person is guilty of aggravated assault
if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
causes:
A. Serious bodily injury to another; or
petition for revocation, the government charged Wright with a
violation of release based on drug use, which Wright admitted.
Wright does not appeal this basis for revocation.
- 4 -
statute,
as
he
"recklessly
used
dangerous
weapon,
U.S.C.
imprisonment
3559(a),
sentence
of
which
five
carries
years,
maximum
according
revocation
to
18
U.S.C.
then
sentenced
Wright
to
below
the
five-year
- 5 -
maximum,
This appeal
II.
We review the district court's ultimate decision to
revoke
supervised
release
for
abuse
of
discretion,
and
the
Cir. 2009); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir.
1996).
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3).
court that Wright's conduct during the July 20, 2014, incident
constituted aggravated assault under 208(1)(B), the "use of a
dangerous weapon" prong of the Maine statute.
Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 208(1) (2014).
reach
whether
his
conduct
also
qualifies
under
the
"extreme
Under
applicable
Maine
law,
criminal
liability
for
Id. 208(1)(B).
Maine
A.2d 333, 334 (Me. 1994); see State v. York, 899 A.2d 780, 783
(Me. 2006); Pierre, 649 A.2d at 33435 & 334 n.3 (discussing Me.
Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, 2(9)(A), defining "use of a dangerous
weapon").
Wright asserts that "the circumstances in this case do
not allow finding that the truck was used as a dangerous weapon,"
as "[n]ot every instance of driving away causes the motor vehicle
to be defined as a weapon under Maine law."
other situations, it is not true here.
While
the
victim,
Trayes,
survived
without
life-
- 7 -
Wright
exposure was to no more than two years, and his actual sentence of
thirty months, or two and a half years, was more than that.
In
revocation
sentencing,
after
considering
the
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3).
18 U.S.C. 3559(a):
An offense that is not specifically classified
by a letter grade in the section defining it,
is classified if the maximum term of
imprisonment authorized is-(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum
penalty is death, as a Class A felony;
- 9 -
proper
3559(a)
classification
of
criminal
We
We explain below.
An
279, 285 (1st Cir. 2011) (joining all sister circuits in finding
that the maximum penalty under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), which
lacks a statutory maximum, is life imprisonment).
The rationale
for this reading was well stated in United States v. Turner, 389
F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2004): "[T]he sensible rule of statutory
construction [is that] the absence of a specified maximum simply
means that the maximum is life imprisonment. By declining to limit
the penalty, Congress gives maximum discretion to the sentencing
court," id. at 120.
penalty
criminal
for
imprisonment.
felony.
contempt
should
therefore
be
life
defining
it,
is
classified
if
the
maximum
term
of
We
generally
do
not
depart
from
statute's
plain
extraordinary
consideration,
such
as
the
prospect
of
Under
Id. at 1285.
The
crime
according
to
the
maximum
sentence
the
judge
was
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), made
that
now
courts
in
that
circuit
look
to
the
most
analogous
is
so
unreasonable
as
to
be
"patently
absurd."
See
Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 796 (1987); see Ex Parte Robinson, 86
U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 51011 (1873).
Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Congress could
not have intended to label contempt as a Class A felony because of
the seriousness of the "felon" appellation.
- 13 -
It is undoubtedly
to
read
that
classification
into
discrete
statutory
v. Cohn, 586 F.3d 844, 845 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
In Cohn,
the court rejected the Ninth Circuit's approach but reasoned that
nonetheless "[u]niform classification of criminal contempt would
be inconsistent with the breadth" of conduct covered by the
statute.
Id. at 848.
criminal
contempt
is
unlike
other
crimes
classified
by
Id. at 84849.
conclude from the fact that the Supreme Court has referred to an
offense as "sui generis" that Congress could not have intended for
an
offense
with
maximum
term
of
life
imprisonment
to
be
Congress
may
criminal
limit
the
courts'
discretion
when
addressing
- 15 -
That contempt
power
unchecked.
We
share
the
concerns
about
the
of
the
relevant
3553(a), 3583(e).6
sentencing
factors,
see
18
U.S.C.
classified
as
Class
felony
the
purposes
of
18 U.S.C. 3559(a).
we find that there was no error of law and the sentence was
reasonable.
III.
We affirm.
- 17 -