USA v. Darian Tensley

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6. Judge: FUENTES Authoring.

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3068
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DARIAN TENSLEY,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 3:15-cr-00108-001)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 10, 2017
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 13, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge
In August 2013, while serving a lengthy federal drug sentence at Schuylkill FCI,1

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

Darian Tensley became agitated during a routine pat-down conducted by Officer Jim
Siedel. During a brief scuffle, Tensley spun around and punched Siedel in the face.2
Almost two years later, Tensley was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111 (“Assaulting,
resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees”), entered an open plea of guilty, and
was sentenced to 33 additional months in prison. The only issue now on appeal is
whether the District Court correctly overruled Tensley’s objection to a two-level
sentencing enhancement for causing Siedel “bodily injury,” a decision we review for
clear error.3
The relevant definition of “bodily injury” is found in the Application Notes to
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1: “any significant injury; e.g., an injury that is painful and obvious, or is
of a type for which medical attention ordinarily would be sought.” Whether an injury is
“significant” is a fact- and record-dependent inquiry that looks to whether the injury was
more than trivial or minor. Relevant factors include the degree and duration of the pain
and discomfort experienced by the victim, as well as the character of any medical

1

See M.D. Fl. Crim. No. 8:03-CR-00227; see also Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) ¶ 60
(reflecting a 327-month sentence for selling 53.8 grams of crack cocaine).
2

The PSR says that Tensley threw and landed two punches, see PSR ¶ 5, but the
sentencing transcript reflects only a single punch, see App’x 29.
3

See United States v. Harris, 44 F.3d 1206, 1217 (3d Cir. 1995); see also United States v.
Richards, 674 F.3d 215, 220–22 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing clear error review in the
context of Guidelines determinations). We have jurisdiction to answer this question
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
2

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

intervention.4
The government submitted two exhibits to the District Court in support of the
proposed enhancement. The first was a contemporaneous incident report that briefly
described Officer Siedel’s injuries: “Suffered contusion to [his] upper and lower
lips/swelling, small laceration, interior lower lip . . . .”5 Siedel was “instructed” to
“follow-up with the local hospital.”6 The second exhibit was a set of full-color photos of
Siedel’s face, time-stamped within five minutes of the attack. They show Siedel with a
bloody nose and a cut inside lower lip.7 No formal medical report was introduced into
the record.
The government then called Officer Siedel to the stand during Tensley’s
sentencing hearing, which was held almost three years after the incident. At the hearing,
Siedel discussed his injuries, which he described as “very” painful.8 With regard to
medical intervention, he testified that the emergency-room doctors had examined his
mouth (to ensure his teeth were not loose) and X-rayed his arm. He was told that he
would probably have headaches for a few days (he did) and to treat them with over-the4

See Harris, 44 F.3d at 1217–19.

5

App’x 57. Siedel also sustained an injury to his elbow and left hand while restraining
Tensley after the attack. See App’x 38.
6

App’x 57.

7

See App’x 56. The copy in the appendix is in black and white; the color photographs
are available on the District Court’s docket at ECF No. 46.
8

App’x 38–39.
3

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

counter pain medications. Siedel returned to work the next day—“psychologically, it was
a little tough”—and experienced some swelling that affected his ability to smile.9 He
later clarified that he required no follow-up medical attention and that his teeth were fine.
Moreover, on cross, he candidly conceded that he received no treatment for his lip
injuries and that the X-rays revealed nothing amiss. And he agreed with defense counsel
that it was “fair” to say “there was no treatment at the hospital, other than X-rays and an
evaluation that there was no damage done.”10
Relying on two out-of-Circuit cases, Tensley argues on appeal that the injuries
Siedel sustained were not “significant” and thus could not support the “bodily injury”
sentencing enhancement. The first case, the Tenth Circuit’s 2006 decision in United
States v. Mejia-Canales,11 has similar facts: a federal inmate struck a guard in the face
and head, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111, and received the bodily-injury
enhancement in District Court. The successful appellate challenge to the enhancement in
Mejia-Canales, however, grew out of the government’s failure to provide an adequate
factual basis for applying it. The guard’s injuries were minor, consisting of a head
wound and a small oral cut; the record contained only three poor-quality photographs and
the PSR’s brief description of the wounds. Moreover, the guard did not testify.12 The
9

App’x 40.

10

App’x 43.

11

467 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2006).

12

Id. at 1281, 1283–84.
4

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 5

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

Fifth Circuit reached much the same conclusion, for much the same reason, in United
States v. Zuniga,13 the other decision Tensley relies on. There, the Fifth Circuit described
evidence of the injury—a single eyewitness statement about the victim being “trampled”
and experiencing pain in her arm—as “sparse.”14
We believe the record here is sufficient to support the application of the
enhancement under our deferential review for clear error. Unlike in Mejia-Canales and
Zuniga, the victim here testified about his injuries, saying that they were painful and had
aftereffects that lasted for days—both factors that can support a finding of bodily injury.15
The full-color photographs, meanwhile, show Siedel bleeding from his mouth and nose.
While the medical attention revealed nothing serious and the testimony about
psychological trauma might not bear on the enhancement,16 the record was such that the

13

720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

14

Id. at 593.

15

See, e.g., United States v. Maiden, 606 F.3d 337, 338, 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming
enhancement when PSR contained victim’s statement that, after being sprayed in the eyes
with pepper spray, she felt a burning sensation that prevented her from wearing contact
lenses).
16

It is unclear whether the District Court took this part of Siedel’s testimony into
account. We do not appear to have decided whether mental anguish alone, such as
trauma arising from the fact of the attack itself—as distinguished from mental distress
that illuminates or arises from an injury and bears upon its significance—can be a
component of a “bodily injury” determination. See, e.g., United States v. Lanzi, 933 F.2d
824, 827 (10th Cir. 1991) (finding no clear error when “psychological injury” was
deemed not to amount to “bodily injury”); cf. United States v. Spinelli, 352 F.3d 48, 58
(2d Cir. 2003) (finding psychological injury could constitute “serious” and “permanent or
life-threatening” bodily injuries, whose definitions in the Application Notes to § 1B1.1
5

Case: 16-3068

Document: 003112537247

Page: 6

Date Filed: 02/13/2017

District Court could reasonably find that Siedel suffered a “significant” injury. And
when there are two reasonable views of the evidence, a choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous.17
In sum, we find no clear error in the District Court’s judgment of sentence. It will
be affirmed.

include damage to “mental faculty”). The record here was sufficient to apply the
enhancement without that testimony, so we leave the question for another day.
17

United States v. Waterman, 755 F.3d 171, 174 (3d Cir. 2014).
6