United States v. Harry Lynn Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 3rd Cir. (1992)

979 F.
2d 320
UNITED STATES of America

v.
Harry Lynn HALL, Appellant.
No. 92-7265.
United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
Nov. 2, 1992.
Decided Nov. 12, 1992.
Daniel I. Siegel, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, Pa., for

appellant.
Eric Pfisterer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, STAPLETON and LAY * , Circuit
Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Chief Judge.
Harry Lynn Hall appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of
alcohol at the Gettysburg National Military Park in violation of the
Pennsylvania Vehicles Code, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 3731 (Supp.1992),
through application of the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13 (1988)
(ACA). Our review of the underlying legal issue is plenary. Universal Minerals,
Inc. v. C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 102 (3d Cir.1981).
I.
Facts and Procedural History
2
Hall was found guilty following a jury trial. Before sentence was imposed, he
filed a motion for arrest of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 34, arguing that
the indictment failed to charge an offense and the court was without
jurisdiction. Hall claimed that driving while intoxicated on lands under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service was already prohibited by a federal
regulation, 36 C.F.R. 4.23, and thus the ACA could not apply.
3
The district court rejected Hall's characterization of the issue as one going to
jurisdiction, and rephrased it as whether Hall's conviction must be vacated
because he was improperly charged under the ACA rather than the applicable
federal regulation. The court concluded that Hall had waived any objections to
the charge or the indictment by failing to raise them in a pretrial motion as
required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). The district court denied the Rule 34 motion
and imposed a sentence of 45 days imprisonment and a $300 fine.
Because the case was resolved on the procedural issue, the district court did not
reach the merits of Hall's Rule 34 motion. Nonetheless, the court indicated that
in its view the federal regulation in question was not an "enactment of
Congress" and thus would not in any event have precluded the application of
the Pennsylvania state statute through the ACA.
II.
Discussion
5
We cannot resolve this appeal on the Rule 12(b)(2) ground deemed

determinative by the district court. The Rule 34 motion for arrest of judgment
was based on the assertion, inter alia, that the indictment did not charge an
offense under the ACA. Inasmuch as Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2) expressly
excludes such an objection from those that must be made prior to trial, the
district court erred in failing to reach the merits of the Rule 34 motion. See Finn
v. United States, 256 F.2d 304, 306 (4th Cir.1958) (Rule 34 motion based on
similar objection is proper vehicle to attack failure of indictment to charge
offense even where objection not raised before trial). We turn therefore to the
merits.
Under the ACA, if conduct prohibited by state law occurs on federal land, the
state criminal law is assimilated into federal law so long as that conduct is not
already made punishable by any "enactment of Congress." 18 U.S.C. 13(a). In
other words, the ACA fills gaps in the law applicable to federal enclaves,
ensures uniformity between criminal prohibitions applicable within the federal
enclave and within the surrounding state, and provides residents of federal
enclaves with the same protection as those outside its boundaries. See United
States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 78 S.Ct. 291, 2 L.Ed.2d 282 (1958); United
States v. Kiliz, 694 F.2d 628, 629 (9th Cir.1982). It follows that if the conduct
is already prohibited by federal law, a prosecution for a state law violation
through application of the ACA is inappropriate. See Williams v. United States,
327 U.S. 711, 717, 66 S.Ct. 778, 781, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); United States v.
Patmore, 475 F.2d 752, 753 (10th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Altman,
931 F.2d 898 (table), 1991 WL 67887, * 3-4, 1991 U.S.App. LEXIS 8623, * 34 (May 2, 1991) (9th Cir.1991) (California statute can be applied through ACA
because it proscribes drunk driving which injures someone in contrast to federal
prohibition of drunk driving); Fields v. United States, 438 F.2d 205, 208 (2d
Cir.) (state battery statute applicable because conduct prohibited differs from
that under federal assault statute), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29
L.Ed.2d 684 (1971).
7
The indictment charged Hall with "driv[ing] a motor vehicle upon a highway
within [Gettysburg National Military] Park while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor" in violation of 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 3731(a)(1),(4)
through application of the ACA. Although no section of title 18 of the United
States Code prohibits drunk driving, the operation of a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol within the boundaries of lands under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service is prohibited under a federal regulation. See 36 C.F.R.
4.23. Gettysburg National Military Park falls within that jurisdiction.
This court has not previously considered whether a federal regulation (as
contrasted with a statute) operates as an "enactment of Congress" within the
meaning of the ACA. We agree with those courts that have concluded that a
federal regulation does qualify as "an enactment of Congress." See, e.g., United
States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir.1992) (applying 36 C.F.R. 4.23
instead of assimilating state drunk driving law); United States v. Brotzman, 708
F.Supp. 713, 715 (D.Md.1989) ("[T]he regulations in question [36 C.F.R.
4.2(a) ] constitute specific 'enactments of Congress' that preclude application of
the Assimilative Crimes Act."); United States v. Adams, 502 F.Supp. 21, 24
(S.D.Fla.1980) (GSA regulation covers same prohibited activity as state statute
and thus ACA cannot apply).
It has been explained in Adams that regulations can be treated as enactments of

Congress because they "have been promulgated pursuant to a specific
congressional delegation." Id. at 25. As the same court stated, "[t]he fact that
the federal proscription is embodied in a regulation rather than a statute does
not mean that the government stands mute on the point." Id. at 24.
10
The district court in the instant case pointed to cases holding that the ACA
applies notwithstanding an applicable regulation of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ). See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 568
n. 3 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848, 98 S.Ct. 157, 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977).
We believe such cases are inapposite. Unlike federal regulations, which are
provisions of general application and hence analogous to statutes, the UCMJ
applies only to military personnel. See United States v. Fulkerson, 631 F.Supp.
319, 324 (D.Haw.1986). We are thus led to conclude that jurisdiction in this
case should have been premised on the applicable CFR regulation rather than
on the ACA.
11
The government argues that even if jurisdiction was mistakenly based on the
ACA, no reversal is required as Hall requests. We agree. The erroneous citation
of the ACA in the indictment, rather than the applicable federal regulation, is
not necessarily fatal.
12
The citation of the wrong statute in an indictment is not grounds for reversal of
a conviction unless the defendant was misled to his or her prejudice. See
Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(3). There is no prejudice from the citation to an inapplicable
statute when the elements of the two crimes are the same and the defendant
was adequately apprised of the charges. See, e.g., Richard v. Lockhart, 953
F.2d 361, 362 (8th Cir.1992) (no prejudice when crime charged and proved
virtually identical); United States v. Gordon, 641 F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir.)
(indictment upheld if furnishes defendant with sufficient description to prepare
defense), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859, 102 S.Ct. 312, 70 L.Ed.2d 156 (1981);
United States v. Eucker, 532 F.2d 249, 257 (2d Cir.) (sufficient if an indictment
charges an offense even if an "inapposite statute is referred to therein"), cert.
denied, 429 U.S. 822, 97 S.Ct. 73, 50 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976).
13
This court had occasion to apply this general principle in United States v.
Catena, 500 F.2d 1319 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1047, 95 S.Ct. 621, 42
L.Ed.2d 641 (1974). The indictment charged a physician with fraudulently
submitting false medicare claims to a person or officer in the civil service of the
United States, or to any department or agency thereof, under 18 U.S.C. 287.
Although we found that the evidence did not support defendant's conviction
under the charged statute since he had submitted the claims directly to private
insurance carriers, we upheld his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2(b), which
provides that one who causes any act to be done may be punished as a
principal. We found that even though section 2(b) had not been referred to in
the indictment, the indictment language had given the defendant sufficient
notice of the charged crime.
14
In this case, the language of Hall's indictment was sufficient to charge a

violation of 36 C.F.R. 4.23, because that regulation and 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann.
3731 prohibit the same conduct. The federal regulation reads:

15
Operating
or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while
... [u]nder the influence of alcohol ... to a degree that renders the operator incapable
of safe operation....
16
36 C.F.R. 4.23(a)(1). The Pennsylvania statute reads:
17person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of
A
any vehicle while ... under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the
person incapable of safe driving....
18
75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 3731(a)(1).
19
This is not a case in which application of the ACA and the state law broadened
the definition of a federal crime or resulted in punishment more severe than that
available under federal law. See, e.g., Palmer, 956 F.2d at 191 (improper to
invoke ACA to enhance punishment); United States v. Olvera, 488 F.2d 607
(5th Cir.1973) (remand for resentencing where federal misdemeanor statute
applies and state felony statute was assimilated), cert. dismissed, 416 U.S. 917,
94 S.Ct. 1625, 40 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974).
20
Furthermore, the sentence imposed on Hall was not higher than that which
could have been imposed had Hall been convicted under the CFR. Under 36
C.F.R. 1.3, a violation of 36 C.F.R. 4.23 is punishable by a fine not
exceeding $500, or six months imprisonment, or both, plus costs. Hall was
sentenced to 45 days imprisonment and a fine of $300. Thus, he can claim no
prejudice. See United States v. Brunson, 549 F.2d 348, 351 n. 1 (5th Cir.) (no
prejudice from mistaken citation of statute in indictment because penalty ranges
the same), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 842, 98 S.Ct. 140, 54 L.Ed.2d 107 (1977); cf.
United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925, 931 (2d Cir.1988) (unnecessary to
resolve which Guideline applies where sentence imposed falls within both
possibly applicable sentencing ranges). Accordingly, we see no need to remand
for resentencing. Contra United States v. Word, 519 F.2d 612 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 423 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 290, 46 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975).
III.
Conclusion
21
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.
Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation

United States v. Harry Lynn Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 3rd Cir. (1992)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Harry Lynn Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 3rd Cir. (1992)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Harry Lynn Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 3rd Cir. (1992)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

979 F.

UNITED STATES of America

United States Court of Appeals,

Daniel I. Siegel, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, Pa., for

We cannot resolve this appeal on the Rule 12(b)(2) ground deemed

It has been explained in Adams that regulations can be treated as enactments of

In this case, the language of Hall's indictment was sufficient to charge a

3731 prohibit the same conduct. The federal regulation reads:

36 C.F.R. 4.23(a)(1). The Pennsylvania statute reads:

You might also like