08
- 62 23
- cr

U ni t ed Stat es v. Li ggi ns UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

## SUMMARY ORD ER R ULI NG S BY S UM M ARY O RDER DO NO T HAVE P RECEDE NTI AL E F F ECT . C I TATI O N TO A S UM M ARY O RDER F I LED O N O R AF TER J ANUARY 1, 2007 , I S PER M I TT ED A N D I S G O V ERNED BY F EDERAL R U L E O F A P P ELL ATE P RO CEDURE 32. 1 AND THI S CO URT ’ S L O CAL R ULE 32. 1.1 . W H EN CI TI N G A SU M M A R Y O RDER I N A DO C U M ENT F I LED W I TH THI S CO URT , A P ARTY MUST CI TE EI TH ER T H E F EDERAL A P P ENDI X O R AN E L E C T R ONI C D A T A B A S E ( W I TH THE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER ”) . A PAR TY C I TING A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO P Y O F I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RES ENTE D BY COUNSEL . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 11 day

of January , two thousand ten. th P R E S E N T : P IE R R E N
. LE V A L,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, DEB RA A. L I VI

NGSTON, Circ uit J ud ge s.

_______________________________________________________ United States of Amer ica, Appellee ,

v. No. 08-6223-c r Durre ll L igg ins, a/k/a/ Nature Boy , a/k/a/ CEO, Defendant-

Appellant
.

________________________________________________________ F or Ap pe lla nt: L AURI E S. H ER S HEY , Manhasse t, New Yor k. For Appellee : ANDREW T. B AXT ER , United States Attorney , J ohn M. Katko and Eliz abeth S. Riker, Assistant United States Attorney s, Norther n District of Ne w York.2

Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of New Y ork (Hur d, J. ), followingthe def endant’ s g uilty

plea. UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT I S HER

EBYOR DE RE D, AD JU DG ED , A ND DE CREED that the judg ment of the district
c ourt is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Dur

rell L igg ins appea ls from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Nor thern District of N ew Yor k (Hurd, J

.), followinghis guilty

plea. The District Court sentence d L igg ins principally to 180 months i mprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the fac tual and proc edura l history of the c ase, a s well as the issues on
a pp e a l. L ig g ins fi rs t c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a pp lic atio n o f a

fo ur -l e ve l r ole e nh anc e me nt t o the ca lculation of his offe nse leve l under the United States SentencingGuidelines. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1( a) pr ovides for a

four- level enha

nceme nt if a def

endant “ was a

n org anizer or lea der of

a criminal ac tivity

that involved five or mor e par ticipants or was othe rwise e x tensive.” U .S.S.G. § 3 B1
. 1 (a ). “B ef

o re i mp o s i n g a r o l e a d

j u s tm en t , th e s en t en ci n g co urtmu s tm ak e s p ec i fi c f i n d i n gs as to why a par ticular subsec tion of § 3B1.1 a djustment applies.” Un ite d S tates v . W ar e , 577 F .3 d 4 42 , 4 51 (2 d Ci r. 20 09 ); se e als o U nite d S tates v . E sp inoza , 514 F.3d 209, 212 ( 2d Cir. 2008), cert. de nied , --- U.S. ---, 128 S.Ct. 2458 (2008); United States v. Molina , 356 F.3d 269, 27 5 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 4) ; Un ite d S

tates v . Pata sn ik, 89 F.3d 63, 68 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (“Acourt must . . . make two spe cific f

actua l findings be fore it can prope rly enhanc e a de fenda

nt’s offe nse leve l under § 3B 1.1(a) : (i) that the def endant wa s ‘an or g anizer or lea der,’ and (ii) that the c riminal activity either ‘ involved five or mor e par ticipants’ or ‘w as otherw ise extensive.’”). L igg ins does not dispute that the drugconspirac y for whic h he wa s found guilty involved five or mor e3

participa nts. He ar gues only

that the district court fa iled to make spec ific finding s as to whether he wa s an “or g anizer or lea der.” We are not persuade d.

“ [W]e r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th at a de fe nd ant d e se rv e s a

le a de rs hip enhanc ement under

§ 3B1.1 de novo , b ut w e re vie w the c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t su pp or tin gits conclusion only

for c lear err or.” United States v. He rtular , 562 F.3d 433, 449 ( 2d Cir. 2009). We identify

no such er

ror in this case . The followingfac ts support the court’s f inding that the four- step incre ase in off

ense le vel was w arr anted. In his plea agree ment, L igg ins admitted that he wa s an “ up pe r l e ve l de a le r who su pp lie d o the r c o- c on sp ir ator de a le rs and

a lso so ld d ir e c tly

to
o th e r s . ” T h e f

o l l o w i n ge x c h an g e o c c ur

r e d atL i g g i n s ’ s p l e a

c o l l o quy: TH E CO UR T: So you

a dmi t to be ingon e of

the up pe r- le ve l pe op le in t his c on sp ir a c y , in

thi s d ru gop e ratio n, Mr . L ig g ins ? L I GGI NS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You do? L I GGI NS: Yes, sir. In addition, the sentenc ing c ourt expli citly adopted the f

actua l statements in the prese ntence repor t (“PSR”), both at the time of sente ncingand in its written judgme nt, see SentencingTr. at 4:2-6, there by

satisfying the require ments of § 3553(c ). See M olina , 3 5 6 F. 3 d

at2 7 5 -7 6
. T h o u gh
a do pti on of the PSR d oe s n ot s uf

fi c e if the PSR it se lf

do e s n ot s tate e no ugh f

a c ts t o p e rm it meaning ful appe llate re view, W ar e , 5 77 F .3 d at 45 2, that is no t th e c a se he re . B a se d u po n r e su lts of an e x tensive investig ation by the F.B .I . involving informa nts, cooperating witnesse s, and wire int e rc e pts of

va ri ou s me mbe rs of

the or g anizatio n, the PSR e sta bli sh e s inte r a lia that L igg ins had authority over individuals involved in the drugtraff ickingorg anization and rec ruited at lea st one oth e r m e mbe r, wa s a

le a de r a lon gwi th a

c o- de fe nd ant who ra

n th e g ro up , a

nd us e d v iol e nc e to th r e at e na s u b o r d i n at e w h o o w e d

h i mm o n e y.4

L igg ins’s second c halleng e to his sentence is an attac k on its reasona bleness under United States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005). He argues that the district cour t abused its discretion in sentencinghim to 180 mont hs imprisonment because the cour t based its sentenc e on two
err oneous conc lusions: (i) that L igg ins and his co-de fenda nt “belong ed in the same cate g ory” for sentenc ing pur

poses; and (ii) that L igg ins “had shown no r emorse f or his crimes.” Under Booke r , 543 U.S. 220, we re view sente nces f or re asonable ness. See also United States v. W

illiams , 4 75 F .3 d 4 68 , 4 74 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ). We r e vie w the su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss of a se ntence under a

n abuse- of-discr etion standard, a nd will “set aside a

district court’s substantive deter

mination only

in exceptional case s where the trial cour t’s decision ca

nnot be located w ithin the rang e of pe rmissible decisions.” United States v. Rigas , 583 F.3d 108, 121- 22 (2 d Ci r. 20 09 ); Un ite d S

tates v . Ca v e ra , 550 F.3d 180, 189 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted). In “conduc ting substantive r eview, w e take into account the totality of the circ umstances, g iving due defe renc e to the sente ncingjudge ’s exercise of discretion, and be aring in mind the inst itutional advantag es of district cour ts.” Id
. at1 9 0 (c i t i n g Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 334, 354 (2007)). The district court’s fa ctual finding s are revie wed f or cle ar e rror . United States v. Se lioutsky , 409 F.3d 114, 119 ( 2d Cir. 2005). L igg ins’s arguments are without merit. The cour t did not clearly

err in finding that L igg ins lacked r emorse. N or did the cour t err in f inding that L igg ins and his co-de fenda nt

“ be lon g e d in

the sa me c ate g or

y .” Con sid e ri ngthe se fa c tor s a nd the tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s, we f ind that the sentenc e imposed wa s rea sonable. We h ave re vie we d L ig g ins ’ r e ma ini ngargume nts and fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t.5 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :_______________________