United States v. Rasheed

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed Abdul Rasheed's conviction for escape, holding that venue was proper in the Western District of New York because the receiving facility (RRC) where he was required to report was located there, even if he never physically entered the district. The court also found that the trial judge's statements to the jury about Rasheed's custody status, while problematic, did not warrant a mistrial given curative instructions and the stipulated fact of custody. On sentencing, the court rejected challenges to the Guidelines calculation (treating state convictions as prior sentences rather than relevant conduct) under plain error review, and construed cost-contribution conditions as contingent on ability to pay, while deferring review of the modified risk-notification condition as unripe. Key topics: venue for failure-to-report escape under 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a), judicial comments on custody, relevant conduct for escape, and conditions of supervised release.

Holdings

1. Venue was proper in the Western District of New York because the escape occurred when Rasheed failed to report to the VOA RRC in Rochester, New York, which is located in that district. The failure to report constituted the offense, and the situs of the crime is the place where the required act was to be performed.
2. The district court's statements were problematic but did not warrant a mistrial. The denial of the mistrial motion was not an abuse of discretion.
3. The court does not decide whether the district court erred because Rasheed's challenge fails under the third prong of plain error review: he cannot show a reasonable probability that a lower criminal history category would have affected the sentence.
4. The cost-contribution conditions are construed to be contingent on a finding of ability to pay, so no error. The challenge to the risk-notification condition is not ripe because the condition has been modified by a standing order and any allegedly improper delegation may never occur.

Questions Presented

1. Whether venue was proper in the Western District of New York for an escape committed during an unaccompanied transfer from a federal prison in Virginia to a residential reentry center in New York.
2. Whether the district court's statements during jury selection that Rasheed was in custody and had committed a felony, followed by curative instructions, deprived him of a fair trial and required a mistrial.
3. Whether the district court erred in calculating the advisory Guidelines range by treating his Pennsylvania state sentences as prior sentences rather than relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
4. Whether the district court erred in imposing cost-contribution conditions for substance abuse and mental health treatment programs and a standard risk-notification condition of supervised release.

Disposition

affirmed