09-5175 -cr

Unite d State s v . A

ndujar UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
R U L I NGS BY S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G T O A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON A N Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y or k, on the 14 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and t en. th PRES ENT: R E E N A R A G G I,

DE BR A A. L I VI NGS T ON, DE NNY C HI N, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 5175- cr M AR I ANO AL F RE DO AND UJ AR , a . k
. a . J E S US LAR A, a . k
. a . M I LTON AN TON I O J I M ENEZ,

D ef endant

-Appel lant .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FO R A PPE L L A N T : Y uanchung L ee , o f C ouns el , Feder al D efe nder s of N ew Y or k, In c ., N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk
. FOR APPELLEE : E m i l y B er ger , Set h D
. D uchar me , As s i s t a n tUni t e d St at es A tto rn e y s , f

or L or ett a E
. L ynch, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney forthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, B r ookl yn, N ew Y or k.2

A ppeal fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our t for the E as t ern D i s tr i ct o f N ew Y o rk (S te rl in g J o h n s o n , J r., Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt e n ter e d o n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 , is AF F I RMED
. D efe ndantM ar i ano A l fr edo A nduj ar , w h o pl eade d gui l tyt o one countof i l l egal
r eentryaft erdeport at i on, s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1326( a) , ( b) ( 2) , appea l s fr om a j udgm ents ent enci ng hi m pr i nci pal l yt o 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow end of a 57 t o 71 m onth G ui del i nes
r ange ba s ed on a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21 and a C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryof I V
. W e r evi ew
a s e n te n c e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s , s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 -6 2 (2 0 0 5 ), a
s t andar d aki n t o r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 187- 88 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc)
. “R eas onabl enes s r evi ew i nvol ves cons i der at i on of both t he l ength of t he sent ence ( s ubs t ant i ve re as onabl enes s ) and t he proc edur es us ed t o arr i ve atthe
sen tenc e (p roc ed u ral reaso n ab lene ss). ” U n it ed S tat es v . C an o v a, 48 5 F
. 3 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 9 (2d C ir
. 2007)
. I n undert aki ng thi s r evi ew , w e assu m e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and
re c o rd o f p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re f e re n c e o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto e x p lain o u r d e c isio n to
a f f i r m. 1. P rocedu ral R easona bleness A nduj arar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourti m perm i s s i bl y ac co rded a pr es um pt i on ofT he l ow er24 t o 30 m onth r ange w as cal cul at ed bas ed on an a s s um pt i on thatA nduj ar 1 h a d b e e n d e p o rte d f

o r a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , se e U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(C ), w h e n , in f a c t, h e h ad b ee n d ep o rt ed fo r a v iolen t cri m e c o n v ict ion , see id. § 2 L 1
. 2 (b)(1 )(A ). 3 r eas onabl enes s t o hi s G ui del i nes r ange as evi dence d byi t s fai l ur e t o expl ai n “w hya s ent ence
w ith in th e m u c h lo w e r r a n g e s e t f o rt h in th e p le a a g re e m e n t w o u ld n o t h a v e s u f f ic e d .” 1 A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 18; s ee al s o N el s on v. U ni t ed St at es , 129 S. C t . 890, 892 ( 2009) ( “O ur
c a se s d o n o t allo w a se n ten c in g c o u rt to p re su m e th a t a s e n te n c e w it h in th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e is rea so n a b le.” ). W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d
. T h e d istric t c o u rt w a s re q u ire d to cal cul at e and c ons i derthe corr ect G ui del i nes r ange, s ee G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U
. S. 38, 4 9 (20 0 7 ); U n it ed S tat es v . C rosb y , 3 9 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ), an d , a b s e n t rec o rd
e v id e n c e to th e c o n tra ry , o f w h ich th e re is n o n e h e re , w e a ss u m e th a t itu n d e rsto o d its d iscreti o n to d ep art fro m that ran g e, see U n it ed S tat es v. L eg ros, 52 9 F
. 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 8 (2d C ir
. 2008) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. B oni l l a, 618 F. 3d 102, 111 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( not i ng thatdi s tr i ct j udge i s notr equi r ed t o r es pond t o everyar gum entof couns el )
. A ccor di ngl y , w e have no
r eas on t o concl ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed an i m perm i s s i bl e pr es um pt i on i n i m pos i ng the cha l l enged s ent ence . I n ur gi ng otherw i s e, A nduj ar ar gues for the fi r s t t i m e on appea l that the G ui del i ne that appl i es t o hi s cr i m i nal offe ns e, U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2, i s due l es s defe r ence than otherG ui del i nes b e c a u se it i s a n “ ‘e c c e n tric’ o n e o f ‘h ig h lyu n u su a l p ro v e n a n c e w h ich , u n les s c a re f u lly appl i ed, can e as i l ygener at e unr eas onabl e r es ul t s . ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at1 9 (qu ot i ng U ni t ed4

S tat es v . D o rve e, 60 4 F
. 3 d 8 4 , 9 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ), am en d ed b y , 6 1 6 F
. 3 d 1 7 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 )). I n s uppor t , A nduj arci t es t o ourdeci s i ons hol di ng that “a di s tr i ctcourtm ayvaryfr om t he G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed sol el y on a pol i cy di s agr eement w i th the G ui del i nes , even w her e that [pol i cy ] di s agr eementappl i es t o a w i de cl as s o f o ffe nder s oroffe ns es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at 191; s ee al s o U ni t ed S t at es v. T ut ty , 612 F. 3d 128, 131 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( hol di ng di s tr i ctcourtco m m i t t ed pr ocedur al err or“w hen i tconcl uded thati tcoul d not
cons i dera br oad, pol i cy - bas ed cha l l enge t o the chi l d pornogr aphyG ui del ine s ”)
. W e nee d nother e di s cus s i n det ai l the ci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o the pr om ul gat i on and modi fi cat i on of U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1. 2. E ven as s um i ng thata di s tr i ctcourtcoul d r el yon a pol i cydi s agr eement
w ith th a t G u id e lin e to im p o se a n o n -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , w e id e n tifyn o e rro r, let alo n e p lain
err or , i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on nott o do s o her e. See U ni t ed St at es v. V i l l afue r t e, 502 F
. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (rev iew ing u n p rese rve d sen tenc ing arg u m en ts fo r plain e rror); cf. U ni t ed St at es v. M ej i a, 461 F. 3d 158, 164 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o r educe sen tence t o acc ountforabs ence of “f as ttr ack” pr ocedur es
rea so n ab le). 2. S ub st anti ve R easona bleness A defe ndantchal l engi ng the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence bear s a hea vy bur den bec aus e w e affor d s ent enci ng court s “veryw i de l at i tude t o deci de the pr operdegr ee of puni s hm ent for an i ndi vi dual offe nderand a pa r t i cul arcr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a,5

550 F. 3d at188; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. M azz a- A l al uf, 621 F. 3d 205, 214 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( “B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourthas a part i cul aradvant age i n as s es s i ng the evi dence and the d e f e n d a n t , we a c c o r d i tc o n s i d e r a b l e d e f e r e n c e i n a s s i g n i n g wei g h tt o r e l e v a n ts e n t enci ng fac t or s . ”) , cert . deni ed, - - - S. C t . - - - - , 2010 W L 3975752 ( N ov. 8, 2010)
. I ndeed, w e w i l l s et asid e a sen tenc e o n su b stan ti v e g ro u n d s “ o n lyin ex ce p ti o n al ca ses w h ere the tri al co u rt ’s deci s i o n c a n n o t b e l o c a t e d wi th i n th e r a n g e o f p e r mi s s i b l e d e c i s i o n s . ” Uni t e d St at es v. C av era , 5 5 0 F
. 3 d at 18 9 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itte d ). A lth o u g h w e d o n o t acc o rd G ui del i nes s ent ence s a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s , “in t he overw hel m i ng m aj or i tyof
cas es , [w e r ecogni ze that ] a G ui del i nes s ent ence w i l l fal l comfort abl yw i thi n the br oad r ange of s enten ce s thatw oul d be r eas onabl e i n the part i cul arci r cumst ance s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fernandez , 443 F. 3d 19, 27 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; acc or d R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 551 U
. S. 338, 347 (20 0 7 ) (en d o rsi n g ap p ell ate c o u rtp resu m p ti o n o f re aso n ab lene ss). An d u j a ra r g u e s th a th i s s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l yl o n g f o rth r e e r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) U. S
. S
. G. § 2L 1. 2 es t abl i s hes a hi gher offe ns e l evel than i s es t abl i s hed for other , al l egedl ym or e s er i ous
cr i m es ; ( 2) s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed def endant s i n di s tr i ct s thatempl oy“fa s t tr ac k” pr ocedur es
r egul ar l yr ece i ve l ow er s ent ence s than A nduj ar ; and ( 3) the ci r cumst ance s of hi s part i cul ar situ a tio n – p rin c ip a lly , th e n a tu re o f h is c rim e , h is a lien sta tu s, h is a g e , a n d th e len g th o f h is p rio r se n ten c e s
– w a rra n t a s h o rte r se n ten c e . E v e n if w e w e re in c lin e d to a g re e w ith A nduj ar ’ s prudent i al ar gum ent s , “[t ] he fact that [w e] m i ght r eas onabl y have c oncl uded that6

a d if f e re n t s e n te n c e w a s a p p ro p ri a te is in s u f f ic ie n t to ju s tif

yre v e rs a l o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U
. S. at51. U l t i m at el y , w e ar e notper s uaded thatA nduj ar ’ s 57-
m o n th se n ten c e is a n e x c e p tio n a l o n e th a t ca n n o t b e lo c a ted w ith in th e ra n g e o f p e rm iss ib le
c h o ic e s a v a ila b le to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 8 9
. W e h av e c o n side red A n d u jar’s othe r arg u m en ts on ap p ea l and co n clud e tha t th eyare
w i thoutm er i t . A ccor di ngl y , the j udgm entof the di s tr i ct court ent er ed on D ece m ber 4, 2009, i s h e r e b yAF F I RMED
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt