2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-4-2010 

# U S A v . E ddie M a r t ine z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1027

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" U SA v . E dd ie M a r t inez " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1802. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1802NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_____________ No. 08-1027

_____________ UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. E DD I E M AR T I

NE Z, a/k/a ERI FREDO E DDI E MARTI NEZ E DD I E M AR T I

NE Z, Appellant

_______________ On Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y (D.C. No. 06-c r-00183- 2) District J udg e: Honora

ble J oel A. Pisano

_______________ Submit ted Under

Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Fe bruar y 26, 2010 Be fore : CHAGARES, STAPL ETON, a nd L OURI E*, Circ uit

J ud ge s. (F iled: March 4, 2010 )

_______________ OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T

_______________

_______________ *Honora ble Alan D. L ourie, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit sit ting by

desig nation.2

L OURI E, Circuit Judge . Eddie Mar

tinez appeals fr om the judgme nt of the United States District Court for the District of Ne w J erse y

sentenc ing him to 70 months in prison for drugtraff ickingand fire arm of fe ns e s. We w ill a ff

ir m. 

### I . BA CK GR OU ND On August 6, 2007, Martinez pled guilty to one count of c onspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to dis tribute over 500 grams of c ocaine contra ry to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)( 1)(B )(ii) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one c ount of possession of a f irea rm afte r previously

beingconvicted of

a fe lony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)( 1). Martinez’s PreSentencingReport ca lculated a combined off

ense le vel of 27 unde r the Sentenc ing Guidelines. Martinez’s plea a g ree ment stipulated to an offe nse leve l of 25 based on ( 1) a downwar d adjustment of two levels for acc eptingpersona l responsibility pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1( a) and (2 ) a do wnwa rd a dju stm e nt o f o ne le ve l f or tim e ly a g re e ingto e nte r a

ple a purs ua nt t o § 3E1.1(b). The District Court acc epted the stipulated total off ence level of 25 at Martinez’s sentenc ing he aringon November 20, 2007. At the hea

ring , the District Court also ca lculated a criminal history

cate g ory of three based o nfi v e c ri m i n al h i s t o ry

p o i n t s . Ins o d o i n g, th e C o urtre j ec t edM art i n ez ’s ar gum en tth ata dru grelated conviction in which he was sente nced unde r North Car olina’s Youthful Off ender Act qualified a s a juvenile rather than a s an adult convic tion. The Court thus assigne d three criminal history points for that conviction under SentencingGuideline § 4A1.2( d)(1) . Finally , the District Court denied Ma rtinez’s motions for two further downwar d depar tures, one unde r Guideline § 5H 1.6 for e x traordina ry family circ umstances a

nd another3

un de r § 5K2. 0 f

or pr ov idi nga ssi sta

nc e to l aw e nf

or c e me nt. Withre g ard

to h is f amil y c ir c ums tanc e s, the Court

fo un d th at Ma

rt ine z ha d ma de no mor e tha n a g e ne ri c argume nt t

hat hi s family will suffer ha

rdship as a r esult of his incarc eration. W ith reg ard to a ssisti nglaw enfor ceme nt, the Court found that the assistance did not rise to such a leve l as to take it out of the hear tland of the Guide lines for purpose s of § 5K2.0 and that gr antingthe motion would require the Court to s ub sti tut e its jud g me nt f or that of the Un ite d St ate s A tto rn e y , who ha d d e c lin e d in thi s c a se to f

ile a mot ion in s up po rt

of a de pa rt ur e fo r p ro vid ingsu

bs tanti a l a ssi sta

nc e to authorities under

§ 5K1.1. The Court re cognized its discretion to g rant a depar ture but never theless, for both motions, declined to e x erc ise that discre tion, resulting in a f inal Guideline ra ng e of 70 to 8 7 mo nth s im

pr iso nme nt. The District Court sentenc ed Mar tinez to 70 m onths in prison and four year s of supervise d re le a se . M art ine z ap pe a le d. We h ave jur isd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 12 91 and 18 U. S.C. § 3742(a) . 

### I I . DI SCUSSI ON When review ing a

sentenc e, this Court must first “ensure[] t hat the district cour t committed no significa

nt proce dural e rror ” and “ then, at stag e two, conside r its substantive rea sonablene ss.” United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558, 567- 68 (3d Cir. 2009) ( en banc ) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Where a def endant c halleng es the c alculation of the Guidelines’ r ang e, this Court reviews a district court’s interpr etation of the Sente ncing Gu ide lin e s de novo and re views any finding s of fa ct used in the c alculation for clea r er ror. United States v. W

ood , 526 F.3d 82, 85 ( 3d Cir. 2008). Martinez alleg es three err ors in the District Court’s sentenc ing de cision. First, Mar tinez4

ar gu es th atth e D i s tri ctC o urti n co rr ec t l y ad d edth re e p o i n t s t o h i s cr i m i n al h i s t o ry b y i n cl u d i n g a conviction in which he w as sentenc ed as a Commi tted Youthful Off ender under N orth Carolina law a nd se rv e d o nly

tw o mo nth s. Se c on d, Ma rt ine z al le g e s th at th e Di str ic t Co ur t a bu se d it s discretion in deny

ing a motion for a downwa

rd depa rture unde r Sentenc ing Guideline § 5H1.6 based on his extraordinar y family circ umstances, a

nd specific ally

his close re lationship with and po sit ive inf

lue nc e on his c hil dr e n. An d f

ina lly , M art ine z al le g e s th at th e Court a bu se d it s discretion in deny

ing a motion for a downwa

rd depa rture f or his cooper ation with the g overnme nt under Guideline § 5K2.0 despite the g overnme nt’s ref usal to submit a moti on under § 5K 1.1. The g overnme nt responds that the District Court cor rec tly added thr ee points to Martinez’s criminal history

under Sente ncingGuideline § 4A1.2( d)(1) beca use Mar tinez’s drugconviction at a g e 17 wa s an a du lt c onvic tio n und e r N or th C aro lin a

law, fo r whic h h e re c e ive d a n 1 8- month sentenc e. With reg ard to the D istrict Court’s denial of downw ard de parture s under § 5H1.6 a nd § 5K2.0, the g overnme nt argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review such dis c re tio na

ry de nia ls. We a g re e wi th t

he g ov e rnme nt t

hat th e Di str ic t Co ur

t di d n ot e rr

in a ssi g nin gthr e e po int s to M art ine z’s c ri min a l hi sto ry un de r § 4A 1. 2( d) (1 ) b a se d o n h is d ru g -r e late d c onvic tio n in

No rt h Carolina. The District Court committed no clear err or in findingthat Martinez’s North Car olina conviction was a

n adult conviction. See W ood , 526 F.3d at 85. Martinez acknowle dg ed that he was ove r 16 year s of ag e at the time he committed the offe nse, makinghim subject to prosecution a s an a du lt und e r N or

th C aro lin a

law. N. C. G e n. Sta

t. § 7B -1 60 4. Mo re ov e r, se nte nc inga s a Commi tted Youthful Off ender does not neg ate the e ffe ct of a n adult conviction under

the Guidelines. F inally , the fa ct that Martinez serve d only two months is i rre levant. The conviction5

imposed an 18-month sentenc e, mee ting § 4A1.2( d)(1) ’s re quirement that the se ntence imposed exceed one y ear

and one month. We also agree with the g overnme nt that we do not have jurisdiction to review the D istrict Court’s discretionar

y decision not to g rant two fur ther downw ard de parture s. See U nited States v. Vargas , 477 F.3d 94, 103 ( 3d Cir. 2007). We do, howeve r, have jurisdiction when a district cour t mistakenly

believes that it lacked the discr etion to gr ant a departure . Id. In this case, Judge J oel Pisano ex plicitly

stated at the se ntencinghear ing that he re cognized that he had, but would not exercise, the disc retion to g rant Mar tinez’s moti ons for downw ard de parture s under § 5H1.6 a nd § 5K2.0. As such, we lack jurisdiction to revie w the District Court’s denia l of Martinez’s mot ion s. 

### I I I . CONCLUSI ON F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , w e wi ll a ff ir m th e Di str ic t Co ur

t’ s se nte nc ingjud g me nt.