2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-26-2010 

# U SA v . G arc i a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3798

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . G ar c i a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2016. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2016T he H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3798 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AR T HUR GAR CI A,

A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00301- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and J O N E S, D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary26, 2010 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A r thurG ar ci a pl ed gui l tyt o us i ng a fa ci l i tyof i nt er s t at e comm er ce t o ent i ce aT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). “T h e a b u se-o f-d iscreti o n stan d ard a p p lie s to b o th o u r p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s in q u ir ie s ” d is c u s s e d b e lo w . U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc ). 2 m i nort o engage i n s exual act i vi tyand tr avel i ng i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce f orthe purpos e of eng aging i n il l i ci tsexual cond uct w i th a m i no r. H e w as sent enced t o 8 3 m on ths’ i mp r i s o n me n t , a n d n o w a p p e a l s th a ts e n t e n c e . W e a f f i r m. 1 I. I n Sept ember2003, G ar ci a, w ho w as 56 y ear s ol d and l i vi ng i n C al i forni a atthe t i m e, began e xchangi ng i ns t antm es s ages overthe I nt ernetw i th a 14- y ear - ol d gi r l l i vi ng in P e n n sy lv a n ia. D u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e ir se x u a llye x p licit c o n v e rsa tio n s, G a rc ia m isre p re se n ted b o th h is id e n titya n d h is a g e , an d e x p re ss e d h is d e sire to tra v e l to P e n n s y lv a n ia to h a v e s e x w ith h e r. I n J anuary2004, G ar ci a fl ew t o Penns y l vani a, r ent ed a c ar , and dr ove t o the vi ct i m ’ s s chool bus s t op t o m eether . G ar ci a gave her$100 and a c el l phone thathe us ed to c o m m u n ica te w ith h e r o v e r th e n e x t w e e k . L a ter th a t w e e k , G a rc ia p ick e d th e v ictim up fr om hers chool bus s t op and, pos i ng as the gi r l ’ s father , cal l ed hers chool and r eport ed thats he w oul d be abs entfr om s chool thatday . G ar ci a then t ook the vi ct i m t o hi s hot el r oom , w her e he ha d s exual i nt er cour s e w i th herm ul t i pl e t i m es . G ar ci a dr opped the v ictim o f f a t a f rie n d ’s h o u se th e f

o llo w in g d a y , an d w a s a rre ste d a s h e w a s re tu rn in g h is re n ta l c a r a t th e a irp o rt .U sin g th e 2 0 0 3 e d iti o n o f th e G u id e lin e s, th e U n ited S tate s P ro b a tio n O f f ice in iti a lly 2 cal cul at ed G ar ci a’ s offe ns e l evel underU . S. S. G . § 2G 1. 1( c) ( 2) , w hi ch appl i es i f the “ o f f e n se in v o lv e d c rim in a l se x u a l ab u se , atte m p ted c rim in a l se x u a l ab u se , o r a ss a u lt w ith i nt entt o comm i tcr i m i nal s exual abus e, ” bec aus e the vi ct i m r eport ed thatG ar ci a pul l ed her back on t o the bed w hen she t ri ed to l eave a nd held her dow n w hil e he h ad int ercourse w i th her . Sect i on 2G 1. 1( c) ( 2) r efe r ence s § 2A 3. 1 ( “C r i m i nal Sexual A bus e”) , w hi ch p ro v id e s f

o r a b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

2 7 . Id . § 2 A 3 . 1 (a). P rob ati o n also ap p li ed (1) a fo u rle v e l in c re a s e b e c a u s e “ th e o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itte d b yth e m e a n s s e t f o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2241( a) or( b) , ” w hi ch i ncl ude “know i ngl ycaus [i ng] anotherper s on t o engage i n a s exual act. . . byus i ng for ce a gai ns tthat[] per s on, ” 18 U . S. C . § 2241( a) ( 1) ; ( 2) a tw o- l evel i ncrease becau se the v i ct i m w as bet w een 1 2 an d 1 6 y ears old; and (3) a t w o-l evel i ncrease beca us e G ar ci a know i ngl ym i s r epr es ent ed hi s i dent i tyand us ed a c om put ert o per s uade, in d u c e , e n tic e , o r c o e rc e th e v ic tim to e n g a g e in p ro h ib ite d s e x u a l c o n d u c t. U. S . S . G. §§ 2A 3. 1( b) ( 1) , ( 2) , ( 6) . A ccor di ngl y , Pr obat i on det erm i ned thatG ar ci a’ s offe ns e l evel w a s 3 2 (a f

te r a th re e -l e v e l d e c re a s e f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility, i d. § 3E 1. 1) . W i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I , G ar ci a’ s r es ul t i ng G ui del i nes r ange w as 121 t o 151 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A ts ent enci ng, G ar ci a di s put ed thathe had f or ci bl e s ex w i th the vi ct i m , and ac co rdin g lyarg u ed that ap p li ca ti o n o f § 2 A 3 . 1 w as in ap p rop ri ate. T h e D istri ct C o u rt found thatthe G overnm enthad notpr oven thatG ar ci a enga ged i n for ci bl e s ex w i th the v ict im b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce . A s a re su lto f th e C o u rt ’s find ing , G arc ia’s offe ns e l evel w as r eca l cul at ed under§ 2A 3. 2 ( “C r i m i nal Sexual A bus e of a M i norU nder th e A g e o f

S ix te e n Y e a rs (S ta tu to ry R a p e )” ), r e s u ltin g in a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 4 , i d. § 2A 3. 2( a) ( 1) , and a f

our - l evel t ot al i ncr eas e bec aus e G ar ci a know i ngl ym i s r epr es ent ed hi s i dent i tyand us ed a c om put ert o per s uade the vi ct i m t o engage i n pr ohi bi t ed s exual c o n d u c t. I

d. §§ 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) , ( 3) . A ft erthe thr ee- l evel decr eas e foracc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , G a rc ia’ s re su lti n g o f f e n se lev e l w a s 2 5 , w ith a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 5 7 to 3 In A u g u st 2 0 0 5 , G a rc ia p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f u sin g a f

a c ili tyo f in ter sta te c o m m e rc e to p e rsu a d e , ind u c e , en tice , o r c o e rc e a m in o r to e n g a g e in se x u a l ac tiv ity , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2422( b) , and one c ountof tr avel i ng i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce f or th e p u rp o s e o f

e n g a g in g in illic it s e x u a l c o n d u c t, in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 3 (b ). W i th an off

ens e l evel of 25 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I , G ar ci a’ s G ui del i nes ra n g e w a s 6 0 to 7 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. 271 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . B eca us e C ountO ne ca rr i ed a mandat orym i ni m um t erm of 5

y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, G a rc ia ’s G u id e lin e s ra n g e b e c a m e 6 0 to 7 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. 4 I n J anuary2006, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d G ar ci a t o 100 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent aft erappl y i ng a four - l evel upw ar d departur e bas ed on “a n aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance of a ki nd ort o a degr ee notadequa t el yt aken i nt o cons i der at i on bythe s ent enci ng comm i s s i on” thatt ook G ar ci a’ s cas e outof the “he art l and of typi cal cas es . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . G a rc ia , 225 F. A pp’ x 47, 49 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n A pr i l 2007, w e vac at ed thats ent ence an d rem an d ed fo r resen tenc ing b ec au se th e C o u rth ad ap p li ed an u p w ard d ep arture w ith o u t n o tic e to G a rc ia . I d. ; s ee al s o F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 2 (h). O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a tw el ve- m onth upw ar d var i ance fr om the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , an d se n ten c e d G a rc ia to 8 3 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. H e tim e ly a p p e a le d . II. “O urr es pons i bi l i tyon appel l at e r evi ew of a c r i m i nal s ent ence i s l i m i t ed y et im p o rta n t: w e a re to e n su re th a t a s u b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le s e n ten c e h a s b e e n im p o se d in a pr ocedur al l yfai rw ay . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 5 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). O urr evi ew pr ocee ds i n tw o s t ages . Fi r s t , w e “e ns ur e thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a tely5

expl ai n the chos en s ent ence — i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . Second, w e cons i der th e to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e se n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 7 . “[ I]f th e d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra lly s ound, w e w i l l aff

i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on thatpart i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ” I d. a t 5 6 8 . W e do not“pr es um e thata s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e s i m pl ybeca us e i tfal l s out s i de th e ” G u id e lin e s ra n g e . Id . at 56 7 . R athe r, “[ w ]he re . . . a d istri ct co u rtd ec ides to v ary fr om the G ui del i nes ’ r ecomm endat i ons , w e ‘ m us tgi ve due de fer ence t o the di s tr i ct court ’ s deci s i on thatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, j us t i fythe ext entof the var i ance . ’ ” I d. at561 ( q u o tin gG a ll , 5 5 2 U . S . at 51 ). III . G ar ci a ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e for two r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) th e Co u r tf a i l e d t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n tth e p e r i o d Ga r c i a s p e n to n h o me c o n f in e m e n t w h ile a w a iti n g h is s e n ten c in g ; an d (2 ) it re lied o n im p e rm iss ib le f a c to rs in im p o s in g a n u p w a rd v a ri a n c e . W e a d d re s s e a c h a rg u m e n t in tu rn . G ar ci a fi r s tar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i derthathe had be en under h o m e c o n fin em en t fo r 14 m o n ths p ri o r t o h is sen tenc ing , w h ich in v o lved “se v ereG ar ci a conc edes thathe i s nots t atut or i l yent i t l ed t o cr edi tforthe per i od he s pent 3 u n d e r h o m e c o n f

in e m e n t. See Reno v. Kor ay , 515 U . S. 50, 57 ( 1995) ( “[U ] nderthe l anguage of the B ai l R eform A ctof 1984, a def endants uffe r s ‘ det ent i on’ onl yw hen comm i t t ed t o the cus t odyof the A t t orneyG ener al ; a def endantadmi t t ed t o bai l on restri cti v e c o n d it ion s . . . is ‘ release d . ’”). 6 r e s tr i c t i o n s o n h i s f

r e e d o m ” th a tw e i g h e d i n f a v o ro f a w i th i n - G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e . We 3 d isa g re e . T h e re c o rd c o n f irm s th a t th e C o u rt c o n sid e re d th is a rg u m e n t, w h ich G a rc ia m ade both i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum and dur i ng ar gum enti m m edi at el ybefor e the Co u r ti mp o s e d i t s s e n t e n c e . Th a tth e Co u r td i d n o ts p e c i f i c a l l yme n t i o n Ga r c i a ’ s h o me confi nementi n expl ai ni ng the r eas ons fori t s s ent ence does notm ake thats ent ence p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . See Ri ta v. U ni t ed Stat es , 551 U . S. 338, 356 ( 2007) (e x p lain in g th a t a b rie f

sta tem e n t o f

re a so n s c a n b e su f

f icie n t w h e re a d istric t co u rt is p re s e n te d w ith “ s tr a ig h tf o rw a rd , c o n c e p tu a lly sim p le a rg u m e n ts ” ). G ar ci a nextar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m perm i s s i bl ycons i der ed hi s age, educa t i on, m ar i t al s t atus , and numberof chi l dr en i n i m pos i ng i t s s ent ence . I n s uppor t , he re lies o n a sin g le s e n ten c e f ro m th e C o u rt’s le n g th ysta tem e n t o f re a so n s, w h e re it des cr i bed G ar ci a as “an e ducat ed, m arr i ed, 56- y ear - ol d m an w i th fourchi l dr en” w ho had en g ag ed in “e x tens ive p red atoryco n d u ct” a n d h ad ex erc ised “e x tr em e inf luen ce ” o v er a 14- y ear - ol d chi l d. W e di s cern no pr ocedur al err or . T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as s i m pl ydes cr i bi ng “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of theA l though the G ui del i nes pr ovi de thatcert ai n fac t or s — i ncl udi ng a def endant ’ s age, 4 ed u ca ti o n , an d v o ca ti o n al sk il ls— are “n o t ord inaril yrelev an t i n d eterm ining w h ethe r a depar t ur e i s w arr ant ed, ” U.S .S .G . § § 5 H 1 . 1 , 5 H 1 . 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ), the D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed an upw ar d var i ance i n i m pos i ng the s ent ence , notan upw ar d depar t ur e in c a lc u la tin g th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . G ar ci a al s o appea r s t o ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s emphasi s on the i nfl uence he 5 ex erc ised o v er the v ict im w as im p erm issi b le be ca u se th at i n flu en ce w as th e b asis fo r a tw o -l e v e l in c re a s e in h is o f f e n s e le v e l. S e e U. S . S . G. § 2 A3 . 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) . F o rth e s a me re a s o n s , th e C o u rt d id n o t e rr b yc o n s id e ri n g th is f a c t in im p o s in g a n u p w a rd v a ri a n c e . T o th e e x t e n tGa r c i a c h a l l e n g e s th e s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f h i s s e n t e n c e , we 6 re jec t th a t ch a llen g e a s w e ll, a s w e c a n n o t sa yth a t “n o re a so n a b le s e n ten c in g c o u rt w o u ld have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on th[i s ] part i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s tr i ct courtpr ovi ded. ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 . 7 d ef en d an t, ” f

ac tors w h ich it w as re q u ir ed to co n side r. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1). I n 4 part i cul ar , w e bel i eve i tw as appr opr i at e forthe C our tt o comm enton G ar ci a’ s age a nd educa t i on l evel i n expl ai ni ng w hyhi s “gr oom i ng and cul t i vat i on of the vi ct i m ” w as “part i cul ar l ytr oubl i ng” and w arr ant ed a s ent ence above the G ui del i nes r ange. 5 I n s um , ourr evi ew of the r ecor d confi r m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgave “ r at i onal and m e a n in g f

u l” c o n s id e ra tio n to th e re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in im p o s in g its s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we aff i r m thats ent ence . 6