The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that attempted murder of a federal witness constitutes a "crime of violence" under federal sentencing guidelines, affirming enhanced penalties in a case that has spanned more than two decades.
The court issued its precedential opinion February 3 in *United States v. Dameia Smith*, rejecting the defendant's challenge to his enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief Judge Michael Chagares and Circuit Judges Stephanos Bibas and D. Brooks Smith, heard oral arguments October 1, 2025.
Dameia Smith, also known as Omar or D, was originally convicted more than 20 years ago on charges including solicitation and attempted murder of a federal witness. A jury also found him guilty of using or carrying a firearm "during and in relation to" a crime of violence under § 924(c)(1)(A), which triggered a significant sentence enhancement that resulted in 40 years' imprisonment.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Gerald McHugh. Smith appealed his conviction, challenging whether his underlying offense qualified for the enhanced sentencing provisions.
Circuit Judge Fisher, writing for the court, addressed whether attempted murder of a federal witness meets the definition of a "crime of violence" under the categorical approach required by § 924(c). The court concluded definitively that it does.
"This appeal requires us to decide whether, under the categorical approach, attempted murder of a federal witness is a 'crime of violence' as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)," Fisher wrote. "We conclude that it is."
The decision comes amid evolving Supreme Court precedent that has narrowed the scope of predicate offenses qualifying as crimes of violence. Smith's legal team argued that intervening Supreme Court decisions should invalidate his § 924(c) conviction, contending that attempted murder of a federal witness either fails to meet the crime of violence definition or that jury instructions created ambiguity about the conviction basis.
Smith was represented by Jessica Ettinger from the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, led by Chief Federal Defender Lisa Evans Lewis. The government's case was argued by Robert Zauzmer from the U.S. Attorney's Office, under U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero.
The ruling addresses a critical intersection between witness protection laws and federal sentencing enhancements. Federal prosecutors frequently rely on § 924(c) enhancements to impose substantial additional penalties when firearms are involved in violent crimes. The statute requires that the underlying offense qualify as either a "crime of violence" or drug trafficking crime.
Under the categorical approach mandated by Supreme Court precedent, courts must examine whether the elements of the charged offense, rather than the specific conduct, satisfy the crime of violence definition. This analytical framework has led to numerous challenges as defendants argue that their predicate offenses fall outside the statutory scope.
The Third Circuit's decision provides important guidance for federal prosecutors and defense attorneys in cases involving witness intimidation and violence. Attempted murder of federal witnesses represents one of the most serious forms of obstruction of justice, as it directly threatens the integrity of federal investigations and prosecutions.
Witness protection has long been a cornerstone of federal law enforcement, with severe penalties designed to deter intimidation and violence against those who cooperate with authorities. The ruling reinforces that courts will not hesitate to impose enhanced sentences when defendants target witnesses with violence.
The case also reflects the complex interplay between federal sentencing guidelines and Supreme Court jurisprudence on crimes of violence. Over the past decade, the high court has issued several decisions restricting which offenses qualify for enhanced penalties, leading to renewed litigation over previously settled convictions.
Smith's 40-year sentence reflects the serious nature of witness intimidation combined with firearm use. The § 924(c) enhancement adds mandatory minimum penalties that can significantly extend prison terms beyond what the underlying offense alone would warrant.
The Third Circuit's precedential ruling will bind future cases within the circuit, which encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Other federal circuits may look to this decision when confronting similar questions about witness-related violence and sentencing enhancements.
The decision represents a victory for federal prosecutors who have increasingly faced challenges to longstanding interpretations of crimes of violence. By affirming that attempted murder of federal witnesses clearly falls within the statutory definition, the court has provided clarity for future prosecutions involving witness intimidation.
For defense attorneys, the ruling narrows potential avenues for challenging § 924(c) convictions based on witness-related violence. However, the decision is limited to the specific question of attempted murder and does not address other forms of witness intimidation that might generate different analytical outcomes.
The case serves as a reminder that federal courts take witness protection seriously and will uphold enhanced penalties designed to safeguard the judicial process. With Smith's challenge rejected, his 40-year sentence remains intact, reflecting the severe consequences for those who target federal witnesses with violence.