1

09-4343 -cr Un i t edSt at es v. Naran

j o-R ami rez 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 AM ENDED SUM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y 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 AL 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 P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A SUM 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 T Y M U ST CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ONI C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.
1 A t a s tate d term o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n dC irc u it, h e lda t 2 th e Da n i e l P a tr i c k M o yn i h a n Un i t e d S t a t e s Co u rth o u s e , 5 0 0 P e a r l S tr e e t , i n th e Ci tyo f Ne w 3 Y o rk , o n th e 2 d a yo f D e c e m b e r, tw o th o u s a n dte n . nd 4 5 P R E S E N T : A M A L Y A L . K E A R S E , 6 ROBERT D. SACK, 7 GERARDE
. LYN C H , 8 C i r cui tJudges
. 9 10

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 1 2 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , Appellee , 13 v. N o. 09- 4343- cr 14 1 5 1 6 R O B IN S O N N A R A N JO -R A M IR E Z , al so kn ow n as 1 7 C hicho, al so kn ow n as R ob i nson F l ores, al so kn ow n as 1 8 R o y , D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 19 20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 21 2 2 F O R A P P E L L A N T : L a w re n c e G e rz o g , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk
. 2 3 242 1 F O R A P P E L L E E : Ju s t i n D
. L e r e r , A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A tt o rn e y 2 (S u s a n C o rk e ry, A s s is ta n t U n itd S ta te s A tto rn e y , 3 on the br i ef ), f or L orett a E
. L ynch , U nit ed S t at es 4 A tto rn e yf o r th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk
. 5 6 A ppealfr om the U n it ed S t at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y ork 7 (S a n d ra L . T o w n e s , D is tr i ct Judge ). 8 9 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND 1 0 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t, e n te re do n A u g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , is A F F IR M E D
. 11 1 2 D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e l l a n tR o b i n s o n N a r a n j o - R a m i r e z w a s c o n v i c t e d , f o l l o w i n g ag u i l ty 1 3 p le a , o f

c o n s p ir a c yto im p o rth e ro in in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 5 2 (a ), 9 6 0 (a )( 1 ), 1 4 960( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and 963. T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d N ar anj o- R ami r ez t o 150 m onths of 1 5 im p riso n m e n t, fo llo w e db yf iv e y e a rs o f

su p e rv ise dre lea se , an da$ 1 0 0 sp e c ial 1 6 a s s e s s m e n t . N a r a n j o - R a m i r e z n o w ap p e a l s , a r g u i n g th a th i s s e n t e n c e w a s p r o c e du r a l l y 1 7 u n rea so n ab le. W e a ssu m e the p arti es’ f am il iari tyw ith the f

ac ts an dthe re co rd o f p ri o r 1 8 p ro c e e d in g s , w h ic h w e re f e re n c e o n ly as n e c e s s a ry to e x p la in o u r d e c is io n . 1 9 T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) concluded thatN ar anj o- R ami r ez 2 0 w as th e lea d er o f a co n sp ir ac yinv o lving at l ea st el ev en p arti cipa n ts, resu lt ing in a f o u r2 1 p o in t ag g ra v a tin g ro le a d ju stm e n t. A t se n ten c in g , w h e n a sk e db yth e d istric t co u rt 2 2 wh e th e rth e g o v e rn me n tc o u l dp r o v e th e l e a d e r s h i p e n h a n c e me n tp r o p o s e di n th e P S R 2 3 w as ju sti fied , the g o v ern m en t i n d icatedthat ith ad p rev iou slyrep rese n ted to N ara njo2 4 R ami r ez thati tw oul d notar gue fors uch an a dj us tm ent , butthati tcoul d pr ove the 2 5 l eade r s hi p r ol e i f the courtor der ed a he ar i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed thati thad an 2 6 i ndepende ntobl i gat i on t o det erm i ne the advi s orygui del i ne r ange and t o cons i derthe3 1 fa ctors p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a), an dito rde red a h ea ri n g to d eterm ine w h ethe r 2 su c h a n a d

ju stm e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te. T h e p a rties e v e n tu a llystip u late dto atw o -le v e l 3 adjustm ent, and no heari ng w as hel d. N aranj o-R am i rez now argues that hi s sent ence is 4 u n re a s o n ab le b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rtla c k e dth e au th o ri ty to o rd e r th e h e a ri n g . 5 N ar anj o- R ami r ez di d notobj ectw hen the di s tr i ctcourtor der ed the hear i ng, and he 6 sp e c if

ica llyw ith dre w h is le tter o b jec tin g to th e tw o -le v e l stip u late de n h a n c e m e n t at 7 sen tenc ing
. A cc o rdin g ly , w e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n to o rde r th e h ea ri n g fo r 8 p la in e rr o r. U n ite dS ta te s v . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 ); U n ite dS ta te s v . 9 V illa f

u e rt e , 5 0 2 F .3 d2 0 4 , 2 0 7 -0 8 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Wef in dn o e rr o r, l e t a lo n e p la in e rr o r. 1 0 It w a s “ c lea rlyw ith in [ th e ] p o w e r” o f th e d istric t co u rt to “ d ire c t[ ] th e G o v e rn m e n t 1 1 to p ro v id e [ it] w ith th e p e rt in e n t in f o rm a tio n .” U n ite dS ta te s v . G o o d m a n , 1 6 5 F .3 d1 6 9 , 1 2 1 7 3 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). F u rth er, ev en if w e w ere to co n stru e the g o v ern m en t’ s p ri o r 1 3 r epr es ent at i on i n an uns ucce s s ful pl ea ne got i at i on as a bi ndi ng pr om i s e, s uch a pr om i s e 1 4 bythe G overnm entt o r efr ai n fr om ar gui ng fora s peci fi c pos i t i on w oul d “notforbi d the 1 5 g o v e rn m e n t f

ro m re sp o n d in g to asp e c if ic r e q u e st o f

th e c o u rt b y‘su p p ly [ in g ] th e C o u rt 1 6 w ith th e la w a n dth e f a c ts .’” U n ite dS ta te s v . R ie ra , 2 9 8 F .3 d1 2 8 , 1 3 5 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 2 ), 1 7 q u o tin g G o o d m a n , 1 6 5 F .3 da t 1 7 2 . T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e dn o p ro c e du ra l 1 8 err ori n or der i ng a hear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherornotN ar anj o- R ami r ez’ s r ol e i n the 1 9 c ri m e m e ri te dale a d e rs h ip e n h a n c e m e n t.4 1 N a r a n

j o - R a m i r e z a l s o a l l e g e s p r o c e du r a l e rr o rb e c au s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rta l l e g e d l y 2 fai l ed t o acc ountforthe “har s h” condi t i ons of hi s pr e- extr adi t i on confi nementi n 3 C olom bia’ s C om bit a pri son. “[P ]r e-s entence con fi nem ent cond i t i on s m ay i n appr opr i at e 4 cas es be a pe rm i s s i bl e bas i s fordow nw ar d departur es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C arty , 264 F. 3d 5 191, 196 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( emphasi s added)
. H ow ever , the di s tr i ctj udge w as underno 6 obl igat i on t o d e p a rtf r o m th e G u i d e l i n e s o n th e b a s i s o f N a r a n j o - R a m i r e z ’ s a l l e g e d l y 7 h a rsh p re -se n ten c e c o n f in e m e n t co n d iti o n s. T h is is s o n o tw ith sta n d in g th a t o th e r d istric t 8 courtj udges have i nvoked the unus ual l ydi ffi cul tcondi t i ons i n the C om bi t a pr i s on i n 9 gr ant i ng dow nw ar d departur es . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , N o. 01 C R 1078, 2005 1 0 W L 2 0 8 7 8 1 8 a t * 2 (S .D .N .Y . A u g . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ). 1 1 N a ra n

jo -R a m ir e z a rg u e s th a t, e v e n if s u c h ad o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re is n o t m a n d a to ry, 1 2 th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e de rro r b e c a u se it “f a iled to c o n sid e r” th e h a rsh c o n d iti o n s a t 1 3 C o m b i t a . T h e r e i s a“ s tr o n g p r e s u m p t i o n th a tas e n t e n c i n g j u d g e h a s t a k e n p r o p e r l y 1 4 pr es ent ed ar gum ent s i nt o acc ountand cons i der ed al l the § 3553( a) fac t or s i n the cour s e of 1 5 im p o s in g as e n te n c e .” U n ite dS ta te s v . F e rn a n d e z , 4 4 3 F .3 d1 9 , 3 4 -3 5 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 1 6 N a ra n

jo -R a m ir e z h a s f

a ile dto o v e rc o m e th is p re s u m p tio n . 1 7 I n the i ns t antcas e, the di s tr i ctj udge s peci fi cal l ynot ed thats he had r evi ew ed the 1 8 d ef

en se’s Ju ly2 9 , 2 0 0 9 letter, w h ich d iscu ssed the c o n d it ion s at C o m b it a, an dN ara njo1 9 R ami r ez’ s att orneyr ei t er at ed the har s hnes s of the condi t i ons ther e dur i ng the veryhear i ng 2 0 atw hi ch the di s tr i ctj udge i m pos ed N ar anj o- R ami r ez’ s s ent ence . T he “abs ence of5 1 expl i ci tdi s cus s i on” of the condi t i ons atC om bi t a “doe s notover come ours tr ong 2 pr es um pt i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtfai thful l yper form ed i t s s t atut oryobl i gat i on t o 3 c o n s id e r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs .” Id . a t 3 3 ; s e e a ls o U n ite dS ta te s v . B o n illa , 6 1 8 F .3 d1 0 2 , 4 111 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( “[W ] e neve rhave r equi r ed a D i s tr i ctC ourtt o m ake s peci fi c 5 r es pons es t o poi nt s ar gued bycouns el i n connec t i on w i th s ent enci ng . . . . ”)
. W e ther efor e 6 conclude thatN ar anj o- R ami r ez ha s notover come the pr es um pt i on thatthe di s tr i ctj udge 7 pr oper l ycons i der ed hi s pr e- s ent enci ng confi nementcondi t i ons , even though s he di d not– 8 and w as notr equi r ed t o – s peci fi cal l yaddr es s thos e har s h condi t i ons w hen i m pos i ng the 9 s e n te n c e . 1 0 W e have cons i der ed al l of N ar anj o- R am ir ez ’s cont ent i ons on thi s appea l and have 1 1 f o u n dth e m to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D
. 12 13 1 4 F O R T H E C O U R T : 1 5 CA TH E R IN E O ’H A G AN W O L F E , C l erk of C ourt 1 6 17