Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-03095/USCOURTS-ca3-09-03095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sonny Surine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

The Honorable John R. Padova, Senior District Judge for the United States District *

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-3095

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SONNY SURINE, a/k/a Sonny Albert Surine

 Sonny Surine,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Case No. 07-cr-00317-1)

District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 26, 2010

Before: RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, 

and PADOVA, Senior District Judge.

*

(Filed: February 22, 2010)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

PADOVA, Senior District Judge

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
2

Sonny Surine appeals his sentence to a term of 60 months of imprisonment, three

years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment for conspiring to possess with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, or crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. Surine argues that the District Court erred in (1) applying the firearm

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), (2) denying his request for a minor role

adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), (3) failing to apply the enumerated factors

under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, (4) failing to follow the three-step sentencing process outlined in

United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006), and (5) imposing an unreasonable

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

For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I.

Because we write for the benefit of the parties, we confine our discussion to the

facts salient to this appeal. The charge against Surine arose out of Surine’s involvement

in a conspiracy over the course of approximately one and a half years to purchase and

resell both powder and crack cocaine. For the duration of the conspiracy, Surine lived

with his father, Paul Surine, in a trailer complex in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. In the

summer of 2005, Paul Surine and his girlfriend, Lisa Lehman, began buying cocaine from

individuals in the Elmira, New York area. They would then, along with Surine and

others, weigh out the cocaine, package it for resale, and eventually resell it. Lehman and

Paul Surine would also cook the powder cocaine into crack. For the duration of the

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
3

conspiracy, cocaine deliveries were made from the New York suppliers to the Surine

complex every other day. Occasionally Paul Surine would send others to the Rochester

and Elmira area to pick up the cocaine and bring it back to Tioga County for resale. On

at least one of those occasions, a firearm was exchanged for cocaine. Surine made

approximately 20 trips to New York to purchase cocaine, bringing back anywhere from

10 to 32 grams to Tioga County each time. Approximately 100-200 individuals

purchased cocaine at the Surine complex. Surine was one of several people who sold

cocaine at the Surine complex. On one occasion, he sold cocaine to an undercover law

enforcement officer.

Surine was arrested on February 1, 2007, and on August 1, 2007, was charged with

conspiracy with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. He pled guilty to that charge on September 5, 2007. On July 14, 2009,

the District Court held a sentencing hearing, at which it granted the Government’s Motion

Recommending Downward Departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e), applied a two-level enhancement because firearms were possessed and traded

during the conspiracy, and denied Surine’s request for a minor role adjustment. Although

the statutory minimum sentence Surine faced was 10 years of imprisonment, and the

Sentencing Guidelines recommended a pre-departure sentencing range of 87 to 108

months of imprisonment, the District Court sentenced Surine to 60 months of

imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100.

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
4

II.

In considering Surine’s challenges to his sentence, we “review factual findings

relevant to the [Sentencing] Guidelines for clear error and . . . exercise plenary review

over a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d

566, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc). “A decision is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court

is left with the definite and firm conviction based on all the evidence that the trial court

made a mistake.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 351 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing United

States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948), and Davis v. United States

Steel Supply, No. 2571, 1981 WL 26981, at *6 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 1981), vacated on other

grounds, 688 F.2d 166 (3d Cir. 1982)). Additionally, we review the sentence imposed by

the District Court for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sevilla, 541 F.3d 226, 230 (3d

Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

III.

Surine argues that the District Court improperly imposed the firearm enhancement

based upon testimony that was not made part of the record at sentencing and that was

insufficient to establish the applicability of the enhancement. The Government bears the

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a sentencing enhancement

applies. United States v. Napier, 273 F.3d 276, 279 (3d Cir. 2001). The Sentencing

Guidelines provide that a defendant’s offense level is increased by two levels if a

dangerous weapon, including a firearm, was possessed during the offense. U.S.S.G.

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
5

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). If a defendant himself did not possess the dangerous weapon, imposition

of the enhancement is permissible based upon the possession by another person if such

possession was a “reasonably foreseeable act[] . . . in furtherance of the jointly

undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); see also United States v.

Thornton, 306 F.3d 1355, 1358 (3d Cir. 2002). 

In imposing the firearm enhancement, the District Court clearly identified several

bases for its decision: Surine’s grand jury testimony, the testimony of other

co-conspirators, and Surine’s testimony at a co-defendant’s sentencing that he was at his

father’s trailer almost every day. At the sentencing hearing, the District Court read from

a transcript of Surine’s grand jury testimony in which Surine testified that he had seen his

father sell guns on at least one occasion. After identifying other instances of testimony

that established that Paul Surine traded guns for crack cocaine, the District Court

concluded that Surine knew that the possessing and trading of firearms was taking place

in furtherance of the conspiracy because he had seen it himself. Even assuming arguendo

that the District Court could not properly consider Surine’s other testimony or the

testimony of his co-defendants, the portion of Surine’s grand jury testimony that was read

into the record at sentencing is sufficient to support the District Court’s imposition of the

firearms enhancement, as it demonstrates that Surine knew that his father sold guns as

part of the drug trafficking conspiracy and saw at least one such sale take place. 

Therefore, we conclude that the Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
6

that the firearm enhancement applied, and that the District Court did not err in imposing

the enhancement.

IV.

Surine next argues that the District Court erred in denying his request for a minor

role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was significantly less

culpable than his co-conspirators. Specifically, he contends that although he traveled to

Rochester with other co-conspirators to purchase cocaine and assisted the conspiracy as a

drug courier, he took his orders directly from his father and did not play a role in

organizing operations, negotiate payments, exercise control over anyone else, or share in

the profits. 

The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a defendant’s offense level may be

reduced by two levels “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal

activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The comments to the Guidelines define a minor

participant as one “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could

not be described as minimal.” Id. cmt. n.5. By contrast, a minimal participant is one

“who plays a minimal role in concerted activity[,]” is “plainly among the least culpable of

those involved in the conduct of a group[,]” and whose “lack of knowledge or

understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is

indicative of a role as minimal participant.” Id. cmt. n.4. The sentencing court is

afforded broad discretion in the application of this section, which is “heavily dependent

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
7

on the facts of a particular case.” United States v. Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236, 238

(3d Cir. 1998). Factors to be considered in determining whether a minor participant

adjustment is warranted include “‘the nature of the defendant’s relationship to other

participants, the importance of the defendant’s actions to the success of the venture, and

the defendant’s awareness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise.’” United

States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1084 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Garcia,

920 F.2d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 1990)).

At the sentencing hearing, the District Court summarized the Probation Officer’s

position and heard arguments from the Government and Surine’s counsel regarding

whether an adjustment was warranted. The District Court then concluded that there had

been many participants with limited roles and that there was no basis to find that Surine

was substantially less culpable than the average participant and therefore entitled to a

minimal role adjustment. That Surine may have been following his father’s orders and

had no part in the organization of the trafficking conspiracy, or that his role, as described

by his counsel, was that of a courier or mule, does not mean that he is automatically

entitled to a minor role adjustment. See, e.g., Headley, 923 F.2d at 1084 (noting that

“[t]he fact that a defendant’s participation in a drug operation was limited to that of

courier is not alone indicative of a minor or minimal role”); see also United States v.

Walker, 1 F.3d 423, 427-28 (6th Cir. 1993) (finding that the mere fact that defendant

courier “was less culpable than ‘organizers, leaders, managers, or supervisors’ [did] not in

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
8

itself establish that the defendant was a minor participant”); United States v. Buenrostro,

868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989) (rejecting the argument that, as a matter of law,

minimal participant status may be inferred from courier status). Therefore, we conclude

that the District Court did not err in denying Surine’s request for a minor role adjustment.

V.

Surine next argues that the District Court improperly considered only one of the

five enumerated factors set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 in granting the Government’s

motion for a substantial assistance departure. Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines

permits the sentencing court, upon motion by the government, to depart from the

guidelines where “the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or

prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. 

Section 5K1.1(a) further provides that in determining the appropriate reduction, the

sentencing court should consider the following factors:

(1) the court’s evaluation of the significance and

usefulness of the defendant’s assistance, taking into

consideration the government’s evaluation of the

assistance rendered;

(2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any

information or testimony provided by the defendant;

(3) the nature and extent of the defendant’s assistance;

(4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of injury to

the defendant or his family resulting from his

assistance;

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
9

(5) the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance.

Id. “[A] District Court has authority to refuse or grant a downward departure under

§ 5K1.1 and is granted broad discretion in determining the extent of the reduction.” 

United States v. Carey, 382 F.3d 387, 392 (3d Cir. 2004). However, it must indicate its

consideration of the § 5K1.1 factors, as well as any other factors it deems relevant, in

determining whether and to what extent to grant a reduction. United States v. Torres,

251 F.3d 138, 147 (3d Cir. 2001). We have “strongly urge[d] sentencing judges to make

specific findings regarding each factor and articulate thoroughly whether and how they

used any proffered evidence to reach their decision.” Id. The sentencing judge therefore

must “conduct an individualized examination of the defendant’s substantial assistance . . .

[and] acknowledge § 5K1.1’s factors in his or her analysis.” Id. 

The record demonstrates that the District Court agreed with the Government’s

analysis of the § 5K1.1 factors in its adoption of the Government’s recommendations and

grant of a two-level downward departure. The Government presented a Motion

Recommending Downward Departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) that recommended a two-level departure. The Government’s Motion tracked

the § 5K1.1 factors, suggesting that Surine satisfied those factors as follows: (1) Surine

was willing to testify against other co-defendants; (2) Surine’s cooperation was

significant because he testified against other co-defendants and provided valuable

information regarding the drug suppliers; (3) the information Surine provided to the

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
10

Government was corroborated by other witnesses; (4) Surine faced a risk of injury by

being incarcerated in a county prison with other co-defendants; and (5) Surine’s

cooperation was timely. The Government also provided a more detailed description of

Surine’s cooperation in its Sentencing Memorandum, which the District Court

considered. The District Court granted the Motion Recommending Downward Departure

and imposed a sentence significantly less than the statutory minimum of 10 years or the

Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months of imprisonment. Consequently, we find that the

District Court indicated its consideration of the § 5K1.1 factors and did not err in its

interpretation of the Guidelines in granting the Government’s Motion Recommending

Downward Departure. 

VI.

Finally, Surine argues that the District Court failed to follow the three-step process

outlined in Gunter in determining an appropriate sentence, and that the sentence imposed

by the District Court was unreasonable in its totality. In reviewing the District Court’s

sentence for abuse of discretion, we follow a two-step process: first, we must “‘ensure

that the district court committed no significant procedural error.’” Sevilla, 541 F.3d at

230 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Next, if we “‘determine that the district court has

committed no significant procedural error, we then review the substantive reasonableness

of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of whether it falls within

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
 Section 3553(a) requires the district court to consider the following factors in 2

determining the appropriate sentence:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant; 

(2) the need for the sentence imposed -- 

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect

for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; 

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or

vocational training, medical care, or other correctional

treatment in the most effective manner; 

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for --

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the

applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines

. . . 

(5) any pertinent policy statement -- 

(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . subject to any

amendments made to such policy statement by act of

Congress . . .

11

the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir.

2008), and citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).

A.

Surine argues that this case must be remanded for resentencing because the District

Court failed to adhere to the three-step process set forth in Gunter, and instead ruled on

the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion only after it heard arguments on the § 3553(a) factors. 

The district court must follow a three-step process to determine the appropriate sentence: 

“(1) calculate the applicable Guidelines range, (2) formally rule on any departure motions,

and (3) exercise its discretion in applying the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”2

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants

with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct;

and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 

12

United States v. Grier, 585 F.3d 138, 141-42 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Gunter, 462 F.3d at

247). The District Court followed this process in the correct sequence. First, the District

Court calculated the Guidelines range as 87 to 108 months. Next, it heard arguments

from Surine’s counsel and the Government regarding the § 5K1.1 motion. The District

Court then heard arguments from both parties regarding the § 3553(a) factors. Next, the

District Court ruled on the § 5K1.1 motion. Only after that did the District Court discuss

the § 3553(a) factors. It is thus clear that although the District Court heard the parties’

arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors before ruling on the § 5K1.1 motion, it ruled

on the § 5K1.1 motion before exercising its discretion in applying the § 3553(a) factors. 

Accordingly, we find that the District Court did not commit a significant procedural error

and therefore did not abuse its discretion.

B.

Surine argues that the sentence imposed by the District Court was unreasonable

because he contends that the District Court failed to consider four § 5K1.1 factors, all of

which militated in favor of a greater downward departure. Surine further argues that the

sentence was unreasonable because the District Court failed to give adequate weight to

his history of physical and mental abuse at the hands of his father, which enabled his

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
13

father to manipulate him into participating in the drug trafficking conspiracy. Since we

have determined that the District Court did not commit significant procedural error, we

review the substantive reasonableness of the District Court’s sentence for abuse of

discretion. Sevilla, 541 F.3d at 230 (quoting Wise, 515 F.3d at 218). “‘[A] district court

will be held to have abused its discretion if its decision was based on a clearly erroneous

factual conclusion or an erroneous legal conclusion.’” United States v. Hoffecker, 530

F.3d 137, 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Wise, 515 F.3d at 217). Ultimately, in considering

whether a sentence is reasonable, we examine “‘whether the record as a whole reflects

rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’” 

United States v. Goff, 501 F.3d 250, 254 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Grier,

475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc)). While the sentencing court must consider

all of the § 3553(a) factors, it need not explicitly comment on every factor if “‘the record

makes clear the court took the factors into account at sentencing.’” United States v.

Parker, 462 F.3d 273, 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324,

329 (3d Cir. 2006)). In reviewing the sentence imposed by the District Court, we apply a

deferential standard and must affirm the District Court’s sentence “[a]s long as [it] falls

within the broad range of possible sentences that can be considered reasonable in light of

the § 3553(a) factors.” Wise, 515 F.3d at 218. An appellant bears the burden of proving

the sentence was unreasonable. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 332.

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
14

To the extent that Surine asserts that his sentence was unreasonable because the

District Court failed to consider four § 5K1.1 factors, we have found that the District

Court did consider those factors. Moreover, we may not consider this argument, because

we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of a discretionary downward departure for

substantial assistance. Torres, 251 F.3d at 145 (citing United States v. Parker, 902 F.2d

221, 222 (3d Cir. 1990)). 

Surine further contends that, in light of his history of suffering physical, verbal,

and sexual abuse, the District Court’s imposition of a 60-month sentence was grossly

unreasonable and its comments regarding his background were “no more than lip

service.” There is no dispute that Surine’s life history is tragic. However, it is clear that

the District Court gave serious consideration to Surine’s background. Before imposing a

sentence, the District Court heard from Surine’s counsel, who described the many horrors

Surine faced growing up. The District Court also heard from Surine himself, who

indicated that he took responsibility for his part in the conspiracy and described his

relationship with his family, his depression, and his drug addiction. Finally, the District

Court heard from the Government, which acknowledged Surine’s difficult youth but also

pointed out that Surine chose to return to his father’s household upon reaching 18 years of

age and that the drug conspiracy ruined many other lives.

After hearing from Surine and the Government, the District Court addressed the

§ 3553(a) factors, including Surine’s history and personal characteristics. The District

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
15

Court first addressed the nature of the offense, noting the impact of the drug trafficking

conspiracy in which Surine was involved on individuals and families in the Tioga County

area. The District Court then discussed Surine’s history and characteristics, describing

his lack of criminal history and his troubled upbringing. The District Court remarked that

Surine’s “childhood and his youth have been . . . one of the most abusive, both mentally

and physically, that I’ve seen.” App. at 34a. The District Court then imposed a belowGuidelines sentence in order “to take into account the . . . extraordinarily [sic] physical

and mental abuse that this defendant was subject to throughout his youth.” Id. at 35a. In

imposing a sentence of 60 months of imprisonment, the District Court stated its belief that

such a sentence was consistent to the extent necessary with the sentences imposed upon

other members of the conspiracy, as well as “necessary . . . to reflect the seriousness of

the offense, to promote respect for the law and to provide just punishment for the offense,

to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct and to protect the public from further

crimes of the defendant.” Id. at 35a. 

In light of the record, which indicates that the District Court considered the

§ 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence that reflects such considerations, we find that

Surine has not met his burden of proving that the sentence imposed by the District Court

was unreasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing a 60-month sentence.

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
16

VII.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-3095 Document: 003110030249 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/22/2010