Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01088/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Greene
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

 Honorable Stewart Dalzell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-1088

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

REGINALD GREENE

a/k/a AMIN

Reginald Greene,

 Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Crim. No. 1-07-cr-00693-001)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 14, 2010

 

Before: BARRY, ROTH, Circuit Judges and DALZELL,* District Judge

(Opinion Filed: May 24, 2010)

 

OPINION

 

Case: 09-1088 Document: 003110155594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
 1

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

 2 We note that the Honorable Stewart Dalzell, who sits by designation on this panel,

was the District Court Judge when, in 1999, Greene was convicted and sentenced in an

unrelated matter. We do not believe that this presents a conflict, and Greene does not

suggest that it does. 

-2-

BARRY, Circuit Judge.

Reginald Greene appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court. We

will affirm.1

Because we write solely for the parties, we will not set forth the facts of the case

except as necessary to our decision.2

 In April 2008, Greene pled guilty, without a plea

agreement, to seven counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; one count of

conspiring to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and one

count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). The charges stemmed

from Greene’s scheme to defraud a mortgage company by altering wire transfer

instructions to divert funds to himself and others.

At sentencing, the government urged the District Court to apply a two-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, alleging that Greene

instructed his former girlfriend to misrepresent the source of the diverted funds to the FBI

and providing grand jury testimony and FBI reports to support its request. This

enhancement had been originally recommended in Greene’s pre-sentence investigation

Case: 09-1088 Document: 003110155594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
-3-

report (“PSR”) but removed after he objected and the government failed to provide

evidence substantiating the enhancement. Greene, in turn, argued that the Probation

Officer improperly applied the 2008 Sentencing Guidelines (in effect at the time of

sentencing) rather than the 2002 Guidelines (in effect at the time of the offense conduct),

where the 2002 Guidelines provided for a lower base offense level. The Court adjourned

the sentencing hearing to allow for supplemental briefing and subsequently held a second

hearing at which it determined that it would apply the 2002 Guidelines, as well as the

two-level obstruction of justice enhancement. It calculated Greene’s offense level at 28. 

With a criminal history category of VI, the applicable Guidelines range was 140-175

months imprisonment. Greene was sentenced to 172 months imprisonment, and timely

appealed. 

Greene argues, first, that the government arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to

file a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, which provides: “Upon motion of the

government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the

investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court

may depart from the guidelines.” Section 5K1.1 “gives the Government a power, not a

duty, to file a motion when a defendant has substantially assisted.” Wade v. United

States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992). District courts have authority to review the

government’s discretionary decision not to file a § 5K1.1 motion and may “grant a

remedy if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive” or when its

“refusal to move was not rationally related to any legitimate Government end.” Id. at

Case: 09-1088 Document: 003110155594 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
-4-

185-86; see also United States v. Abuhouran, 161 F.3d 206, 211-12 (3d Cir. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and conclude without further discussion, for reasons of which

the parties are aware, that the government’s decision not to file a § 5K1.1 motion was not

based on an unconstitutional motive and was clearly related to a legitimate government

end. Greene’s argument to the contrary is without merit.

Greene argues, next, that the District Court improperly applied the obstruction of

justice enhancement because the government’s request for it was untimely. See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32(f)(1) (requiring parties to make objections to a PSR within fourteen days of

receipt). A court may, however, for good cause permit parties to make objections at any

time before sentence is imposed. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(D). We reject Greene’s

argument for two reasons. First, he was not prejudiced by the timing of the government’s

request. The issue was raised in the government’s sentencing memorandum, and Greene

had ten days after the Court adjourned the first sentencing hearing to respond to the

government’s enhancement argument at the second sentencing hearing. Second, Greene

himself raised an untimely objection at sentencing that was ultimately sustained by the

Court. 

Finally, we reject Greene’s argument that the District Court abused its discretion

by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the obstruction of justice enhancement. “[T]he

Confrontation Clause does not apply in the sentencing context and does not prevent the

introduction of hearsay testimony at a sentencing hearing.” United States v. Robinson,

482 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Hearsay testimony must have,

Case: 09-1088 Document: 003110155594 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2010
 3

 The Court found that the facts presented by the government with respect to the

obstruction of justice enhancement were reliable and essentially uncontested. Greene’s

former girlfriend, Lisa Mitchell, had testified to these facts before the grand jury and

apparently confirmed them during her own criminal proceeding before the same District

Court Judge. The Court noted that Mitchell, under oath both before the grand jury and

before the Court, stated unequivocally that Greene directed her to make false statements

to the FBI. 

 4

 Because we will affirm Greene’s sentence, we need not reach the government’s

argument as to whether the ex post facto clause applies to the Guidelines now that they

are advisory only. 

-5-

however, “some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted); see also U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). The Court

concluded that this standard was satisfied, and Greene has offered us no reason to find

otherwise.3

We will affirm the judgment of sentence.4

Case: 09-1088 Document: 003110155594 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2010