2008 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 2-13-2008 

# U SA v . Roge rs 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 . 06-4500

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Ro g e r s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1609. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1609NOT 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. 06- 4500

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

v. Y A K EEN RO G ER S, A ppel l ant

__________ O n 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( No. 0 4 - c r - 0 0 0 5 2 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary15, 2008 B e f o re : B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S a n d R O T H , C irc u it Judg es.

____________ ( Fi l ed February13, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Y akee n R oger s appea l s hi s s ent ence s t emm i ng fr om a convi ct i on fordi s t r i but i ng a n d p o s s e s s i n g wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e o rmo r e g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e b a s e ( c r a c k ) . As the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydecl i ned t o cr edi tR oger s ’ purpor t ed ac cept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , an d a s R o g e rs’ se n ten c e w a s re a so n a b le in a ll o th e r re sp e c ts, w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f s e n te n c e . I. A s w e w r i t e mai nl yfort he part i es , w e onl ybr i efl yr eci t e the fa ct s . A ft ers el l i ng a quar t erounce of

coca i ne bas e t o a conf

i dent i al i nform ant , R oger s w as arr es t ed and char ged w i t h di s t r i but i on and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve orm or e gr ams of co ca ine b ase in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ). W h il e R o g ers o rig in a llya d h e re d to th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is p re trial s u p e rv isio n , h e b e g a n to su b m it num er ous pos i t i ve drug t es t s ( ul t i m at el ys ubm i t t i ng m or e than 20 pos i t i ve t es t s ) . D ur i ng thi s pr etr i al per i od, R oger s w as al s o arr es t ed aga i n, thi s t i m e on cha r ges of aggr avat ed as s aul t , r eckl es s l yendange r i ng anotherper s on, and maki ng t err or i s t i c thr eat s , dur i ng an i n c i d e n ti n w h i c h h e a n d h i s b r o t h e rs t ru c k h i s u n c l e i n th e f a c e a n d b o d y. M o re tha n a y ea r af

ter a g ran d juryreturn ed it s o n e-c o u n t dru g ind ict m en t, R o g ers change d hi s pl ea t o gui l t y . T he pr es ent ence r epor t( PSR ) found R oger s t o be a c ar eer offe nderw i t h a bas e off ens e l evel of 34, butfound thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a thr ee- poi nt adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . W i t h t hi s offe ns e l evel and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e of V I , R oger s w oul d have r ece i ved an a dvi s orySent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange3

of 188 t o 235 m ont hs . H ow ever , R oger s fai l ed t o appea rforhi s s chedul ed s ent enci ng hear i ng, caus i ng a benc h w arr antt o be i s s ued forhi s arr es t . A w ar e of the w arr antoutfor h is a rr e s t, R o g e rs tu rn e d h im s e lf in to lo c a l p o lic e a p p ro x im a te ly tw o m o n th s la te r. A thi s s ubs equent l ys chedul ed s ent enci ng hear i ng, the G overnm entfi r s tnot ed that w hi l e R oger s s houl d r ece i ve a tw o- poi nti ncr eas e i n hi s bas e off ens e l evel underSect i on 3C 1. 1 of the G ui del i nes forengagi ng i n obs t ruct i ve conduc t , s i nce hi s bas e off ens e l evel w as al r eady34, t he enha ncementw oul d have no i m pacton hi s s ent ence . T he G ov ernm ent al so argued t hat R og ers w as no long er ent i t l ed to a r edu ct i on i n h i s base offe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , and the C our tagr eed. A ft ercons i der i ng t he fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , the C our ts ent ence d R oger s t o a t erm of 262 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t— w h ich w o u ld e q u a te to th e lo w e st p o in t o n th e a p p lica b le 2 6 2 - to 3 2 7 -m o n th a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s ra n g e . II. R oger s fi r s tappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o aw ar d hi m a r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yunderSect i on 3E 1. 1 of the G ui del i nes . R oger s conce des t hat he obs truct ed j us t i ce byfai l i ng t o appea rathi s s ent enci ng hear i ng and byr emai ni ng a fugi t i ve fort w o m onths , y etcont ends thatbeca us e of the “e xtr aor di nary ” ci r cumst ance s of hi s cas e— t hathe tur ned hi m s el f i n t o author i t i es — he i s ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve a s ent ence r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . W e r evi ew thi s i s s ue forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 344 F. 3d 365, 379 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng thats i nce the s ent enci ng j u d g e i s i n a u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e a d e f e n d a n t ’ s a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , we4

rev iew su ch claim s u n d er the “e sp ec ial lyd ef ere n ti al” c lear erro r st an d ard ). T he comm ent aryt o Sect i on 3E 1. 1 of the G ui del i nes i l l us t r at es thata def endant w hos e conduc tr es ul t s i n an enha ncementunderSect i on 3C 1. 1 or di nar i l yhas notacc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yunder3E 1. 1. See U . S. S. G § 3E 1. 1, cmt . n. 4; U ni t ed St at es v. Par t ee, 301 F. 3d 576, 580- 81 ( 7t h C i r . 2002) . T he comm ent aryal s o s t at es thatther e maybe “extr aor di narycas es ” underw hi ch both t he enha ncementand the r educt i on appl y . See U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 , cm t. n.4 . N e v e rth e les s, R o g e rs’ c a se is h a rd lyso e x tra o rd in a rya s to w arr anta s ent ence r educt i on. T he evi dence s uppor t s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng that R oger s ’ fai l ur e t o appea rforhi s s ent enci ng hear i ng w as nota s i ngl e i s ol at ed i nci dent( he r emai ned a f

ugi t i ve fort w o m ont hs , s ubm i t t ed pos i t i ve drugs t es t s , and w as arr es t ed for as s aul t ) , t hathe tur ned hi m s el f i n notoutof a s ens e of c ontr i t i on butbeca us e he w as “t oo t i r ed” r emai ni ng as a fugi t i ve, and thatR oger s defl ect ed r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s bei ng

“ e n tr a p p e d ” b y t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a n t . A p p e n d i x ( A p p . ) 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 0 9 . A c c o r d i n g l y, the C our tpr oper l yfound thatR oger s ’ cas e w as notextr aor di nary , and w e w i l l aff i r m t he D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o n th is iss u e . S e e U n ited S tate s v . A y a la, 4 7 F .3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 1 (5 th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hatdefe ndant ’ s cas e w as not“extr aor di nary ” eve n w her e he co o p era ted w ith p o li ce af ter his ea rl ier fli g h t from cu stod y ).

III . R o g e rs’ se c o n d c o n ten tio n is th a t h is 2 6 2 -m o n th se n ten c e w a s b o th p ro c e d u ra lly and s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. A s t o pr ocedur al unr eas onabl enes s , R oger s cl ai m s that the C our tgave pr es um pt i ve w ei ghtt o t he G ui del i nes . Speci fi cal l y , R oger s focus es on the5

fac tthatthe C our tvoi ced i t s agr eementw i t h hi s cont ent i on thathe s houl d be gi ven a b e n e f it f o r t u rn in g h im s e lf

in , y e t it r e f

u s e d to d e p a rt f

ro m th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T o b eg in w ith , itd o es n o t fo ll o w as a log ical m att er tha t bec au se th e C o u rt decl i ned t o departfr om t he advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange thati tnece s s ar i l yfai l ed t o acc ount forR oger s havi ng tur ned hi m s el f i n t o pol i ce c us t ody . A ft eral l , the C our ts ent ence d R o g e rs to th e lo w e st p o in t o f th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e . M o re o v e r, th e re c o rd c lea rly i l l us tr at es t hatt he C our tpr oper l ym ani fes t ed i t s aw ar enes s of the advi s orynatur e of the G ui del i nes aft erU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , both dur i ng the gui l t ypl ea col l oquyand att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, and thatthe C our tcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s . See, e. g. , A pp. 105 ( “I n fas hi oni ng thi s s ent ence , I am re qui r ed t o cons i der vari ou s fact ors . . . [such as] [t ]he back groun d o f t his defe nd ant[, ] . . . [w hich] refl ect s a l ong and s t eadyper i od of cr i m i nal act i vi t ys uffi ci entatthe end of the dayt o s uppor tt he car eeroffe nders t atus . ”) . G i ven the cl eari ndi cat i ons thatthe C our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the § 35 53 (a) fact ors and t hat R og ers present s no ev i den ce t o the con t rary , R og ers ’ s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s t o s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , R oger s cont ends thathi s s ent ence w as gr eat er than n ec essa ryto ca rryo u t th e p u rpo ses o f th e S en tenc ing R ef o rm A ct. In p arti cu lar, R o g e rs s tre ss e s th a t th e c a re e r o f f e n d e r p ro v isio n “ m o re th a n d o u b led ” th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e in a n u n re a so n a b le f a sh io n , an d th a t th e C o u rt u n re a so n a b lyf a iled to d e v ia te f ro m th e e n h a n c e m e n t b ro u g h t a b o u t b yh is f a ilu re to a p p e a r a t s e n te n c in g .6

A ppel l antB r . at34. I n r evi ew i ng w hetherthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w er e r eas onabl yappl i ed to th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f

R o g e rs’ c a se , w e u se a d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd , as th e trial c o u rt is “ in the bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence i n l i ghtof the part i cul ar c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f

t h e c a s e . ” Co o p e r , 4 3 7 F . 3 d a t3 3 0 ( “ [ T ] h e q u e s t i o n i s n o th o w we o u rs e lv e s w o u ld h a v e re s o lv e d th e f a c to rs id e n tif

ie d a s re le v a n t b ys e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ). . . . R ather , w hatw e mustdeci de i s w hetherthe di s t r i ctj udge i m pos ed the s ent ence he ors he di d forr eas ons t hatar e l ogi cal and cons i s t entw i t h t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3 5 5 3 (a ).” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T o begi n w i t h, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed the ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ement p u rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 , as R o g ers h ad at l ea st tw o p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion s fo r a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se o r a c rim e o f

v io len c e . S e e U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 . In f a c t, R og ers had t hree qu al i fy i ng fel on i es— t w o co ntr oll ed sub st ance o ffen ses and o ne o ffen se thatw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . M or eover , al ong t hes e l i nes , the C our tl ogi cal l ycons i der ed thatR oger s “has a t err i bl e cr i m i nal hi s t ory , i t ’ s r epet i t i ve, i t ’ s occa s i onal l yvi ol ent . ” A pp. 60. W i th r egar d t o R oger s ’ fai l ur e t o appea r , the C our ts peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed the fa ctt hat “w e ca n’ thave a s i tuat i on w her e peopl e l i t er al l yfl ee a nd ar e gone f orm ont hs w i t houtany ra m if ica tio n . . . the re ’s a d e ter re n t as p e c t to th is.” A p p . 9 7 -8 . In d e e d , the in c re a se in R o g e rs’ se n ten c e b a se d o n h is f a ilu re to a p p e a r w a s p a rticu lar lyju stif ied in lig h t o f

h is pr obl emat i c t erm of pr etr i al s upervi s i on, i ncl udi ng hi s arr es tforas s aul tand the numer ous f a i l e d d ru g t e s t s . T a k e n a s a wh o l e , a n d g i v e n th e d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d wi t h wh i c h we r evi ew s ent enci ng det erm i nat i ons , w e fi nd the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as cons i s t entw ith th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n d w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le .

IV . Fort hes e r eas ons w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .

7