Published on:

Defendant Charges with Possessing a Pipe Bomb

The plaintiff and appellee in this case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Roy L. Schmidt, III. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant, Roy L. Schmidt, III, is appealing the conviction that he is an Armed Career Criminal as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act. Roy L. Schmidt, III in the original case pleaded guilty to the conspiracy of possessing a pipe bomb and of being a convicted felon with possession of the pipe bomb. He is challenging the sentencing from the district court. His reasoning is that the determination of his sentencing used a prior conviction of theft of a firearm was listed as a violent felony for the purpose of convicting him under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Case Facts and History

Before the end of the year 2007, Schmidt made an agreement with another individual to buy the parts for and build a pipe bomb. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it was also agreed for Schmidt to receive this unregistered pipe bomb. He provided the necessary money to the individual for the bomb components to be purchased at Lowes and Home Depot, located in Jefferson, Louisiana. Schmidt and two other individuals constructed three pipe bombs at the one of the individual’s homes. Schmidt then took possession of one of the pipe bombs.

Schmidt was charged with the conspiracy to possess a pipe bomb that was unregistered in October of 2008. He pleaded guilty and did not enter a plea agreement. His sentence hearing was held in November of 2009. The United States Government produced documents to support his convictions of an attempted robbery that occurred in December of 1993, a simple burglary that happened in July o f1993, a possession of stolen items charge from August of 1996, and a simple burglary that occurred in August of 1996 as well.

Schmidt’s presentence report concluded that his previous violations and convictions were crimes of violence. The base level of 24 was given in his preliminary criminal history report. Additional enhancements were assigned for the use of a pipe bomb, use of a firearm, leadership role in offenses, and the involvement of a minor in the offenses. He received an adjustment downward for accepting responsibility for his offenses. The presentencing report determined that Schmidt was qualified as an Armed Career Criminal based on the convictions as listed above. The report set his sentencing at a range between 188 to 235 months imprisonment for the firearms charge and up to 60 months imprisonment for the charges of conspiracy.

Appeal Case

Schmidt argues that he should not be listed as an Armed Career Criminal because the theft that was from a firearms dealer was not a violent crime and he did not involved any minors in his offences. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the district court ruled in favor of the non involvement of the minor and lowered the sentence to 151 to 188 months imprisonment. However, the district court denied the argument that stealing from a firearms dealer is not a violent crime.

Conclusion

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said etermining whether or not a crime of violence qualifies for the Armed Career Criminal Act is determined by the outline of the act. In this case, we have determined under the act that the theft of a firearm from an arms dealer does qualify as a violent offense. For this reason we affirm the original decision and the sentence stands.

Anyone that has been in trouble with the law or currently finds themselves in need of legal advice should contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for help. Our offices located in New York offer free consultations to anyone in need of advice. Call us today to set up your appointment.

Contact Information