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 5-13-2008 

# U SA v . N ew bury 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 . 06-1736

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 . N ew bury " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1233. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1233NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E 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- 1736
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . RO BE RT L E E NE WBUR Y,

A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt F o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00088) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. M aryL . C ooper Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay9, 2008 B E F O R E : B A R R Y a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ,

and R E ST A N I , * Judge ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay13, 2008)

*H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antR ober tN ew bur ypl ed gui l t yt o fi l i ng a fa l s e cl ai m w i t h t he Sept ember 1 1 V ictim s’ C o m p e n sa tio n F u n d . A t se n ten c in g , h e so u g h t a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o r, in the a lt ern ati v e, a v arian ce . T h e g o v ern m en t op p o sed this ap p li ca ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt
s ent ence d N ew bur yt o 30 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as as t he bot t om of the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange. B efor e us i n t hi s appea l , he i ns i s t s t hatt hi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e he pr es ent ed a “ uni que pr os pectof r ehabi l i t at i on” and be caus e the D i s t r i ctC our tpl ace d “undue e m phas i s on t he gene r i c nee d fordet err ence and
r e t r i b u t i o n . ” W e wi l l a f f i r m. T he s ent enci ng j udge conduc t ed N ew bur y ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng and r eac hed her
u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n in stric t an d se n sitiv e a c c o rd w ith th e g o v e rn in g law a rticu late d in R i ta v. U ni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456 ( 2007) , and ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . S h e e x p l a i n e d t h e r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d h e rd e c i s i o n a ts o me leng th. T h at ex p lana ti o n (1) e x p resslyrec o g n ized that the G u ideline ra n g e w as a d v isory onl yand thats he w as author i zed t o gr antN ew bur y ’ s pr obat i on r eques t , ( 2) di s cus s ed the
re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs, in c lu d in g e x p re ss re f e re n c e to , an d e v a lu a tio n o f , ea c h o f h is
ar gum ent s bas ed on hi s “hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , ” ( 3) advi s ed the part i es t hats he w asW hi l e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a de par tur e, w e do 1 h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332- 33. 3 c o n f id e n t th a t sp e c if

ic d e ter re n c e w a s n o t n e c e ss a ry , an d (4 ) a f ter w e ig h in g th e re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, in d ica ted th a t a s e n ten c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e G u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld refl ectt he seri ou sness of the o ffen se, prom ote r espectfor the law , and provide j ust p u n ish m e n t an d a d e q u a te g e n e ra l d e ter re n c e . T h e se n ten c in g ju d g e a lso e x p re ss ly
as s ur ed N ew bur yt hats he bel i eved hi s s ent ence w as no gr eat ert han nec es s aryt o s erve t ho se object i ves.

“ [ W ]e m u st d e c id e . . . w h e th e r th e d istric t ju d g e im p o se d th e se n ten c e . . . sh e d id 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 3553( a) . ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at330 ( quot i ng Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 2 5 F . 3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (7th C ir . 2005) ) . W e conc l ude thats he di d. T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed. 1