Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America v. Isiah JORDAN, Appellant
OPINION *
In this appeal,1 Isiah Jordan challenges the district court’s conclusion that his prior conviction for second-degree sexual assault under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3124.1 is a “crime of violence” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). That section defines a crime of violence, in relevant part, as any federal or state offense punishable by more than one year in prison “that (1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” or “(2) is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault [or] a forcible sex offense․”2 Second-degree sexual assault is defined in Pennsylvania as “engag[ing] in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant’s consent.”3 The district court concluded that second-degree sexual assault was a crime of violence and, accordingly, calculated Jordan’s sentence with an enhanced base offense level.4
In so deciding, the court also concluded that “the sentence that [it] would reach today ․ will be the same regardless of [the] decision [it] made on the enhancement, on the definition of a crime of violence.”5 The district court, thus, provided two grounds for its sentence. It failed, however, to explain its reasons for the alternative ground for its sentence – namely, why it would impose the same sentence without the crime of violence enhancement – as required by, for example, United States v. Smalley,6 and United States v. Carter.7 We will vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court to elaborate on the alternative ground for the sentence imposed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Where, as here, the defendant raised the alleged sentencing error before the District Court, we review the sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell, 564 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 2009).
2. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
3. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3124.1.
4. With the enhancement, Jordan’s total offense level was calculated at 19 and the resulting guidelines range was 37–46 months’ imprisonment. He argues that without the sentencing enhancement his total offense level would have been 13 and the resulting guidelines range 18–24 months’ imprisonment.
5. App. 226.
6. 517 F.3d 208, 214 n.6 (3d Cir. 2008).
7. 730 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2013).
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2789
Decided: August 29, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)