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 1-24-2008 

# U SA v . M cD on ald 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 . 06-1241

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 . M cD on ald " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1716. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1716NOT 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 os . 06- 1241 /06- 1476 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. YUS E F M CD ONAL D,

A ppel l anti n 06- 1241 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA v . DEON LI S TE R,

A ppel l anti n 06- 1476

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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00407/ - 2) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember6, 2007 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges ( fi l ed: J anuary24, 2008 )

OP I NI ONW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 1 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Y us ef M cD onal d, D eon Li s t er , and a thi r d co- defe ndantw er e i ndi ct ed i n t he M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia f

o r d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith th e in ten t to di s tr i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of c r ack c ocai ne. M cD onal d pl ed gui l t yt o t w o count s of the us e of a comm uni cat i ons fac i l i t yt o fac i l i t at e a drug tr ans act i on. L i s t erpl ed gui l t yt o the unl aw ful di s t r i but i on and pos s es s i on w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne hy dr ochl or i de an d cra ck co ca ine f

rom A p ri l 20 0 3 thro u g h N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 . A ll o ther c h arg es w ere di s m i s s ed. M cD onal d and Li s t ernow appea l the s ent ence s i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C our t . W hi l e w e af

fi r m t he s ent ence i m pos ed on Li s t er , w e r emand forfur t her 1 p ro c e e d in g s a s to th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d o n M c D o n a ld . I. A p p e a l o f Y u su f M c D o n a ld A tt he t i m e of s ent enci ng, M cD onal d had s erved appr oxi m at el ytw o y ear s of aggr egat e fi ve t o t en- y ears ent ence s i m pos ed bythe N or t hampt on C ounty , Penns y l vani a, C our tof C om m on Pl eas . H e appe al s the fa i l ur e of the D i s t r i ctC our tt o cr edi thi m for tim e a lr e a d ys e rv e d o n th a t s ta te s e n te n c e . O u r r e v ie w o f th is is s u e is p le n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. Sa ba rese , 7 1 F . 3 d 9 4 , 9 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U . S . S . G . 5 G 1 . 3 (b) p rov ides that a d ef en d an t’ s sen tenc e sh all b e a d justed if a term of i m pr i s onm entr es ul t ed “f r om anotheroffe ns e thati s r el evantconductt o t he i ns t antM c D o n a ld ’s P S R in d ica tes th a t th e c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g th e sta te s e n ten c e w a s “ f u lly 2 t aken i nt o acc ounti n t he det erm i nat i on of the off ens e l evel forthe i ns t antoffe ns e. ” The P S R d id n o t as sig n p o in ts in th e c a lcu latio n o f M c D o n a ld ’s c rim in a l h isto ryb e c a u se th is 3 o ff en se o f c o n v ict ion . . . an d that w as th e b asis fo r an incre ase in the o ff en se lev el. ” It di r ect s t he courtt o adj us t“the s ent ence foranyper i od of i m pr i s onm ental r eadys erved on the undi s char ged t erm of i m pr i s onm enti f the courtdet erm i nes thats uch per i od of i m pr i s onm entw i l l notbe cr edi t ed t o t he fe der al s ent ence bythe B ur eau of Pr i s ons , ” and s t at es thatt he s ent ence “s hal l be i m pos ed t o run concurr ent l yt o t he r emai nderof the undi s char ged t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . ” I d. T he G overnm entconce ded atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng thatM cD onal d’ s offe ns es u n d e r sta te la w w e re p a rt o f a “ m u lti -c o u n tyd ru g d istrib u tio n o p e ra tio n , an d th a t w o u ld be r el evantconduct . ” A pp. 34. I tar gued, how ever , thatbeca us e hi s Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e ( 2 6 2 - 3 2 7 mo n t h s ) wa s s o f a ra b o v e th e 9 6 - mo n t h s t a tu t o r yma x i mu m, M cD onal d s houl d notbe gi ven cr edi tforthe appr oxi m at el ytw o y ear s he s erved on the s ta te s e n te n c e s . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the maxi m um 96- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm enton M cD onal d. I tr ecomm ended t o t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons thatthe s t at e fa ci l i t ybe des i gnat ed the pl ace of conf

i nement , “ther ebym aki ng thes e s ent ence s concurr entw i t h t he defe ndant ’ s [r emai ni ng] s ent ence s [fr om the s t at e ca s e] . ” A pp. 37. R ej ect i ng the rec o m m en d ati o n to the co n tr aryin M cD o n ald’s P re-S en tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt ( “PSR ”) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notgi ve M cD onal d cr edi tfort i m e al r eadys erved on the

2“ is c o n s id e re d c o n d u c t th a t is p a rt o f th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e .” 4 s ta te s e n te n c e . It a ls o d id n o t e x p re s s ly co n s id e r t h e f a c to rs o u tlin e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) orexpr es s anyi nt ent i on t o departfr om the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . I ns t ead, t he C our tappea r s t o have ba s ed i t s deci s i on nott o gi ve M cD onal d cr edi tdue t o t he gene r al cons i der at i on t hatM cD onal d al r eadyhad r ece i ved “a gr eatbr eak i n t he w ayhe w as char ged” a nd w as not“ent i t l ed t o anyt hi ng. ” Id . T he fi r s tques t i on on M cD onal d’ s appea l i s w hether , as he cont ends , the conduc t u n d e r l y i n g t h e s t a t e s e n t e n c e i s r e l e v a n tc o n d u c twi t h i n th e me a n i n g o f U. S . S . G. 5G 1. 3( b) . A s not ed, t he G overnm entappea r ed t o conce de atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng t hat i tw as r el evantconduct . O n appea l , the G overnm entar gues , s eemi ngl yhal f- heart edl y , t he oppos i t e. C om pl i cat i ng m att er s fur ther , i ti s notcl earw hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeci ded on thi s poi nt , part i cul ar l ybeca us e, des pi t e the G overnm ent ’ s conce s s i on t o t he contr ary , t he C o u rt a p p a re n tlyu n d e rsto o d th e G o v e rn m e n t to a rg u e th a t th e sa les u n d e rly in g th e sta te a n d f e d e ra l c h a rg e s w e re “ n o t r e a lly c o n n e c te d .” A p p . 3 6 . W e ar e per s uaded byt he appa r entconce s s i on of the G overnm entand the concl us i on of the PSR t hatt he conduc tunder l y i ng the s t at e s ent ence i s r el evantt o t he co n d u ct at i ssu e in th is case . H o w ev er, i n the a b sen ce o f a fin d ing b ythe D istri ct C o u rt o n th is p o in t, w e h e s ita te to ru le o n th a t is s u e b e f o re th e C o u rt h a s a d d re s s e d it. A c c o rd in g ly, th a t q u e s tio n is a p p ro p ri a te f o r c o n s id e ra tio n o n re m a n d . N otw i t hs t andi ng t hi s open ques t i on, w e mayaff i r m i f w e conc l ude that , as s um i ngT h e G o v ern m en t do es n o t add ress the ap p are n t i n co n sist en cyin the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 3 a p p ro a c h w h e n it ru led th a t th e se n ten c e s s h o u ld ru n c o n c u rre n tlyb u t th a t M c D o n a ld n o n e th e le s s s h o u ld n o t r e c e iv e c re d it f o r t im e s e rv e d . 5 the co nd uct unde rl y i ng t he st at e sent ence is rel evan tcon du ct , i tdid not r ai se the o ffen se lev e l w ith in th e m e a n in g o f U .S .S .G . 5 G 1 .3 (b ). T h e sp e c if ic q u e stio n in th is c a se is w hetherr el evantconductcan be t he bas i s foran i ncr eas e i n t he G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel w h en that o ff

en se lev el alread yh as su rpa ssed a statuto rym ax im u m . T h e G o v ern m en t’ s d e sc rip tio n o f

th e f a c ts o f th is c a se e x e m p lifie s th a t q u e stio n : M c D o n a ld , the ya ss e rt, di s tr i but ed a l ar ge amountof drugs . T hi s gave hi m an off ens e l evel ( 34) and a r es ul t i ng G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange ( 262- 327 m onths ) w el l bey ond t he s t atut orym axi m um for the cr i m e w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged ( 96 m onths ) . T hatdi s t r i but i on of a l ar ge amountof drugs i ncl uded a s m al l s ubs etof thos e drugs thatdi d notaff ecthi s offe ns e l evel . T hat s u b s e t o f d ru g s p u rp o rt e d ly f

o rm e d th e b a s is o f

a c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e in s ta te c o u rt . E ven t aki ng aw ayt hats m al l eramount , the G overnm entar gues , the r emai ni ng amount of d rug s w o u ld sti ll p u t M cD o n ald w ell b ey o n d the s tatu torym ax im u m ; m o reo v er, M cD onal d w oul d r ece i ve the s t atut or ym axi m um even i f the s m al l eramount of drugs w er e notcount ed i n cal cul at i ng t he fe der al s ent ence . Shoul d w e fol l ow thi s anal y s i s , t he D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r w h e n it fa iled to g iv e M c D o n a ld c re d it fo r th e tim e se rv e d in st at e pri son fo r the sm al l er am ou nt of drugs. 3 T he G overnm entm aybe corr ectt o as s ertthata cr i m i nal defe ndants houl d nothave hi s s ent ence r educe d s i m pl ybeca us e the PSR cons i der s r el evantconductthat , beca us e ofT h e G o v e rn m e n t’s a n a ly sis o f th e lik e lya m o u n t o f

d ru g s in v o lv e d in th e sa les in 4 var i ous count i es pr obabl yi s corr ect . Y et , as i tacknow l edges , the PSR fai l s t o cl ar i fyt he a m o u n ts a t is s u e , le a v in g u s to s p e c u la te . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P r ay , 373 F. 3d 358, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( vaca t i ng and r emandi ng 5 f o r c la ri f ic a tio n a f

te r c h a lle n g e to a p p lic a tio n o f U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 (b )) . See a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 572 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ( “The natur e of the fi nal s ent ence i s , as al w ay s , a mat t erw i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t . W e do as k, h o w ev er, th at th e D istri ct C o u rtex p lai n it s d ec isi o n o n the re co rd . . . . ”). W e r ecogni ze, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntemphasi s on the im p o rt a n c e o f

D is tr ic t C o u rt d is c re tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 586, 596- 97 ( 2007) , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm ayhave i nt ended t o exer ci s e s uch d isc re tio n in im p o sin g se n ten c e o n M c D o n a ld . A t o n e p o in t th e C o u rt sta ted , “I r e a lly don’ tthi nk he’ s ent i t l ed t o anyt hi ng. I thi nk he’ s got t en a gr eatbr eak i n t he w ayhe w as char ged. ” A pp. 37. N evert hel es s , and w hi l e w e cont i nue t o es chew anyr equi r ementt hat d istric t ju d g e s f

o llo w a sc rip t in se n ten c in g , the re c o rd is n o t su f f icie n tlyc lea r f

o r u s to know w hethert he C our ther e w as exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes . O n r emand, t her efor e, the C our ts houl d al s o m ake c l eari t s i nt enti n t hat re g a rd . C

f. G a ll , 128 S. C t . at596- 97 ( “[A ] di s t r i ctcour ts houl d begi n al l s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs bycorr ect l ycal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. . . . [T]he di s t r i ct jud g e sh o u ld the n co n side r all o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors to d eterm ine w h ethe r th eysu p p o rt the s ent ence r eques t ed bya part y [, and then] . . . m ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entbas ed 6 th e o p e ra tio n o f

a s ta tu to ry m a x im u m , d id n o t in c re a s e th e a c tu a l s e n te n c e im p o s e d . H ow ever , w e ca nnoteval uat e the ac cur acyof the G overnm ent ’ s as s ert i ons r egar di ng t he r e l a t i ve s i gn i fi c a nc e of

t he a s s e r t e d l a r ge a nd s mal l drug - s a l e c on s pi r a c i e s . The PSR 4 d o es n o t i n d icate the ex ac t am o u n ts i n v o lved in ea ch co n sp ir ac yan d the c u rren t r ec o rd does nott el l us w hetherM cD onal d w oul d have r ece i ved a 96- m onth s ent ence even i f the D i stri ctC ou rthad no tcon si dered t he co nd uct unde rl y i ng the st at e sent ence. For these r eas ons , w hi l e anyerr orbyt he D i s t r i ctC our tm aybe harm l es s , atthi s t i m e w e ca nnot c o n c lu d e th a t it w a s . A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at e M cD onal d’ s s ent ence and r emand forcl ar i fi cat i on. 5o n the f

ac ts prese n ted.”). 7 I I . A ppeal of

D eon L i s t er T he PSR pr epar ed pr i ort o L i s t er ’ s s ent enci ng det erm i ned thathe had a cr i m i nal his t orycat ego ryof V I w i t h a b ase offen se l evel of 36 . Itcal culat ed an adjust ed o ffen se l evel of 40, r efl ect i ng L i s t er ’ s pos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapon a nd hi s r ol e i n t he offe ns e. T he r es ul t i ng G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange w as 360 m onths t o l i fe. Pur s uant t o the pl ea a gr eement , t he G ui del i nes s ent ence w as cappe d at240 m ont hs . L i s t erdi d not o b j e c ta tt h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s P S R. P rio r to a c tu a l se n ten c in g th e G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re to refl ectL i st er’ s subst anti al assi st ance to i t . Itrecom m end ed a sen t ence o f 18 0 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent . L i s t ers poke att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, as di d t he founde rand pr es i dentof the N at i onal I ncar cer at ed Par ent s and Fami l yN etw or k. H avi ng cons i der ed thi s t es t i m ony i n s uppor tof Li s t erand otherr el evantfac t or s ( s uch as L i s t er ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory ) , the D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 1 5 6 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. L i s t erar gues t hatt he C our terr ed byfai l i ng t o i nqui r e i nt o hi s know l edge of the cont ent s of the PSR orof hi s couns el ’ s r evi ew of thatdocument . H e al s o ar gues thatt he s ent ence i m pos ed i s unr eas onabl e and thathi s couns el fai l ed t o pr ovi de compet ent re p re s e n ta tio n . A . Fa i l ur e t o I nq ui r e i nt o Know l e dg e of the Cont e nt s of

the PSR Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 1) r equi r es thatthe s ent enci ng court“ver i fythattheL iste r’s c o u n se l f a ils to a n a ly z e th is c a se u n d e r th e p lain e rro r sta n d a rd o r to c ite 6 St eve ns . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t hi s om i s s i on, couns el forL i s t erdoes i dent i fys uppos ed d isad v an tage s su ff

ere d b yL ist er a s a re su lto f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s error. 8 d ef en d an t and the d ef

en d an t’ s att o rne yh av e re ad an d d iscu ssed the p rese n tenc e re p o rt and anyaddendum t o t he r eport . ” A ts ent enci ng, couns el forL i s t ers t at ed: “W e fi l ed no o b jec tio n s to th e p re -se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n b a sic a llyb e c a u se th e re w a s [ sic ] e ss e n tially no obj ect i ons t o be made. ” Li s t ert ook i s s ue w i t h “a t one thatr el i ed upon the ac cur acy and truthful nes s of [Li s t er ’ s ] co- defe ndant s , ” butdi d notdi s cus s anyof the conc l us i ons of the P S R w ith w h ich h e n o w d isag ree s. T h e G o v ern m en t con ce d es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n fai l i ng t o i nqui r e i nt o w hetherL i s t erand hi s couns el had r ead a nd di s cus s ed the P S R . Itarg u es, ho w ev er, th at L ist er w as n o t prejud iced b ythis error. B e c a u s e L is te r d id n o t o b je c t to th is o v e rs ig h t, it is s u b je c t to p la in -e rr o r r e v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. St eve ns , 2 2 3 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Un d e rth a ts t a n d a r d , we re v ie w f o r e rr o r t h a t w a s p la in a n d th a t a f f e c te d s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Id . I f s o , we det erm i ne i f the err or“s er i ous l yaff ect [s ] the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 (1 9 9 3 ). N o thing in the rec o rd su g g ests that an yerro r co m m itted b ythe D istri ct C o u rt a ff e c t e d Li s t e r ’ s s ub s t a nt i a l r i gh t s . H e fa i l s t o a s s e r ttha the di d n otr e vi e w the PSR b e f o re th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g . N o r d o e s h e su g g e st th a t h e d id n o t d isc u ss th e P S R w ith his cou nsel . In this l i gh t , L i st er’ s suggest i on s of prej ud i ce are unp ers uasi ve. H e argues, 6 forexampl e, t hatbutfort he fa i l ur e t o i nqui r e i nt o hi s r evi ew of the PSR , he “w oul d have9

had the oppor tuni t yt o chal l enge the conc l us i ons and ave r m ent s i n t he PSR w i t h w hi ch he di d notagr ee. ” Y etL i s t erdi d have s uch an opportuni t ybuts t at ed that“ther e w as [s i c] esse n ti all yn o o b

jecti o n s to b e m ad e” to the P S R . S im il arlyu n p ersu asiv e is L ist er’s ar gum entthathe w oul d have a ddr es s ed “the por t i ons of the r epor the obvi ous l ydi s agr eed w ith ” h a d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s ta te d w h e th e r i t a d o p te d th e f a c ts d e s c ri b e d in th e P S R . T h is le a v e s L iste r’s su b sta n tial rig h ts u n a f f e c ted b yth e C o u rt’s e rro r. W e th u s re jec t th is a s p e c t o f h is a p p e a l. B . R eas onabl enes s of the Sent ence L i s t ercont ends t hathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed o n th e P S R . A s n o te d , L is te r d id n o t o b je c t to th e P S R a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . M o reo v er, th e G u idelines ran g e (3 6 0 m o n ths to li fe ) w as w ell o v er the statu tory m axi m um ( 240 m ont hs ) fort he cr i m e t o w hi ch Li s t erpl ed gui l t y , w hi ch w as m uch hi gher than the s ent ence r ecomm ended byt he G overnm ent( 180 m ont hs ) , w hi ch i n turn w as hi ghert han the s ent ence i m pos ed ( 156 m ont hs ) . L i s t erconce des that , even a bs entthe erro rs he all eg es in the P S R , the G u idelines ran g e w o u ld b e h igh er tha n the s tatu tory m axi m um . I ndeed, t her e i s no pl aus i bl e ar gum entthatthe s ent ence i m pos ed on Li s t er w a s u n re a so n a b le. H is a rg u m e n t th a t h e sh o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a se n ten c e c o m p a ra b le to th e sh o rte r se n ten c e s o f h is tw o c o -d e f

e n d a n ts u lti m a telyis a c o n ten tio n th a t, i n exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have de par t ed dow nw ar d an eve n g re a te r e x te n t f

ro m th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . W e w ill n o t e n te rt a in s u c h a c h a lle n g e . SeeN ordoes t he G overnm entas k us t o r eac h t he mer i t s of thi s ques t i on. 7 10 U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 -3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). C . In e f

f e c tiv e A ss ista n c e o f

C o u n se l L i s t eral l eges i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. W e have ex p lai n ed that su ch arg u m en ts are raised b est i n the f ir st i n stan ce in the D istri ct C o u rt p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . H

e a d ly , 9 2 3 F . 2 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 3 (3d C ir . 1991) . N o r eas on exi s t s forus even t o cons i derdoi ng ot herw i s e. 7 * * * * * B eca us e ea ch of Li s t er ’ s ar gum ent s i s unper s uas i ve, w e af fi r m hi s s ent ence .