2009 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 12-2-2009 

# U SA v . Raul Lop e z -Reyes 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 . 09-1243

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . R aul L opez -Reye s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 160. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/160NOT 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. 09- 1243 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. RA U L LO PEZ- RE Y ES, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 08- cr - 00277- 001) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber2, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antR aul L opez- R ey es appea l s hi s 46 m onth pr i s on s ent ence , w hi ch w as i m pos ed af

t erhe pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal l yr eent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ngL o p e z -R e y e s w a s a rre ste d in O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 o n a c h a rg e th a t w a s u lti m a tely 1 d is m is s e d . It is u n c le a r h o w lo n g h e h a d b e e n in th e U n ite d S ta te s p ri o r t o th a t a rr e s t. -2- d e p o r t a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. BA CKGROUND L opez- R ey es i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co w ho, thr ee t i m es , ent er ed the U ni t ed S tate s in a n e f

f o rt to se c u re e m p lo ym e n t so th a t h e c o u ld f in a n c iallysu p p o rt h is f

a m ily m ember s l i vi ng i n M exi co. O n D ece m ber16, 1994, s hor t l yaft erhi s fi r s tentryi nt o the U n it ed S tat es, L o p ez -R ey es p led g u il tyto ro b b erych arg es in N ew Jerse yS u p erior C o u rt and r ece i ved a t en y earpr i s on s ent ence . H e w as deport ed on J une 4, 1997. L es s than f o u r y e a rs la ter , o n F e b ru a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , L o p e z -R e y e s a g a in e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s, th is t i m e byw ayof the R i o G r ande Ri ver . H e w as appr ehende d tw o day s l at erata Texas a irp o rt a n d s u b s e q u e n tly d e p o rt e d a f te r s p e n d in g o n e d a yin p ri s o n . S o me t i me b e f

o r e Oc t o b e r2 0 0 5 , L o p e z - Re y e s r e tu rn e d t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . He 1 s ett l ed i n A t l ant i c C i ty , N ew J er s ey , w her e he w or ked ata r es t aur ant . O n D ece m ber9, 2007, he w as pul l ed overfora r out i ne tr aff i c s t op, butaft erthe pol i ce of fi cer s s m el l ed m arij u an a e m an ati n g fro m the v eh icl e a n d L o p ez -R ey es p rod u ce d a f rau d u lent d ri v er’s lic e n s e , h e w a s a rr e s te d . W h ile in c u s to d y , h e d is c lo s e d h is ille g a l s ta tu s . L opez- R ey es w as char ged w i th i l l egal l yr e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es s ubs equent to a c o n v ic tio n f

o r t h e c o m m is s io n o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) , and he pl ed gui l tyon A ugus t11, 2008. W i th a t ot al offe ns e l evel ofL o p ez -R ey es c o n ce d es th at “this i ssu e is fo rec lose d b yp rec ed en t . . . . ” (A p p ell an t’ s 2 B r . at27 n. 3. ) W e agr ee. -3- 2 1 (i n clud ing a 1 6 leve l i n cre ase fo r th e d ep o rt ati o n fo ll o w ing h is st ate ro b b ery convi ct i on) and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I , the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 46- 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng on J anuary8, 2009, the D i s tr i ct C our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 46 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. L opez- R ey es t i m el yappea l ed. H e ar gues : ( 1) the D i s tr i ctC our tm i s appr ehende d i t s author i tyt o cat egor i cal l yvaryfr om the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed s ol el yon a pol i cy d isa g re e m e n t w ith U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ; (2 ) h is s e n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le beca us e the 16 l evel i ncr eas e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) over s t at es the gr avi tyof the off

ens e; and ( 3) the “f

el ony ” and “ aggr avat ed fe l ony ” pr ovi s i ons of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )(1 )-(2 ) a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 2

J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3121, and w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. S e n ten c in g c o u rts m u st e n g a g e in a th re e -ste p a n a ly sis to d e ter m in e th e a p p ro p ria te s e n te n c e to im p o s e o n a d e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2006) . T he pr oces s begi ns by“corr ect l ycal cul at i ng the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). O f c o u rse, th e G u idelines are-4-

onl yadvi s ory , buttheynonethel es s pr ovi de the “i ni t i al benchmar k. ” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 39 ( 2007) . N ext , the s ent enci ng courtm us t“form al l yrul e on the m ot i ons of both part i es and s t at e on the r ecor d w hether[i ti s ] gr ant i ng a depa r tur e and how thatdepartur e af

fec t s the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on . . . . ” W ise , 515 F. 3d at216 ( quot i ng G unt er , 46 2 F . 3d at24 7). A tthe final st ep, the co urti s “r equ i red t o ex erci se [ its] d isc re tio n b yc o n sid e rin g th e re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in se tti n g th e se n ten c e [ it] i m pos e[s ] r egar dl es s of w hetheri tvar i es fr om the s ent ence cal cul at ed underthe G ui del i nes . ” G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d at 24 7 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). W hen r evi ew i ng a s ent ence on appea l , w e fi r s tm ake c ert ai n thatthe s ent enci ng courtdi d notcomm i ta s er i ous pr ocedur al err or , “s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or im p ro p e rl yc a lc u la tin g ) t h e G u id e lin e s ra n g e [ o r] tr e a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry. . .

. ” G a ll , 552 U . S. at51. W e then “r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence un der an ab use-of-di scr et i on st and ard, ” w hil e keep i ng i n m i nd that “[a] s l on g as a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n t he br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” W ise , 515 F. 3d at218. DI S CU S S I ON A . A p p lic a tio n o f

U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 Pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2, a def endantconvi ct ed of unl aw ful l yent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es i s gi ven a ba s e off ens e l evel of 8. I n thos e i ns t ance s w her e the def endant w a s p re v io u s ly d e p o rt e d a f te r “ a c o n v ic tio n f

o r a f e lo n yth a t is . . . a c ri m e o f v io le n c e ,”A “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e ” in c lu d e s a s ta te c o n v ic tio n f o r r o b b e ry. U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 3 cm t. n . 1 (B )(i ii ). L o p ez -R ey es d o es n o t dispu te th at he p rev iou slyco m m itted a rob b ery o f f e n s e . (A p p . a t 8 4 .) -5- the off ens e l evel i s i ncr eas ed by16 l evel s . U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2. 3 L o p e z -R e y e s a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt “ f u n d a m e n tallym isa p p re h e n d e d its author i tyt o varyfr om the appl i cat i on of § 2L1. 2 i n thi s cas e bas ed on the fa ctthatthe G ui del i nes r ange pr oduced w as t oo hi gh t o acc om pl i s h the purpos es of s ent enci ng s et f o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 3 5 3 (a ).” ( A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 1 -1 2 .) H e a rg u e s th a t § 2 L 1 .2 is u n re a so n a b le, a n d th a t th e C o u rt “ e n g a g e d in n o in d e p e n d e n t an a ly sis o f [ h is] a rg u m e n ts r egar di ng the pr obl ems w i th § 2L 1. 2, i ncl udi ng thati tw as enac t ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on w i th l i t t l e del i ber at i on and no empi r i cal j us t i fi cat i on. ” (I d. at 15 . ) L opez- R ey es turns t o K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U . S . 8 5 (20 0 7 ), to su p p o rt hi s ar gum entthata courtm aydi s r egar d the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on a pol i cy d is a g re e m e n t. A s th is C o u rt h a s m a d e c le a r, h o w e v e r, K i m br ough does notr equi r e a d istric t co u rt to re

jec t a p a rticu lar G u id e lin e s ra n g e w h e re th a t co u rt d o e s n o t, i n f a c t, h a v e d is a g re e m e n t w ith th e G u id e lin e a t is s u e . U n itedS ta tes v . A rr e lu c e a -Za m u d io , __ F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 9 1 4 4 9 5 , at * 6 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 14 , 2 0 0 9 ); G unt er , 462 F. 3d at249 (“[T ]he D i stri ctC ou rti s underno obl igat i on to im p o se a se n ten c e b e lo w th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e so lelyo n th e b a sis o f th e c ra c k /p o w d e r c o c a in e d if f e re n tial.”) (e m p h a sis add ed). F urtherm ore, a dis tri ctcou rti s not r equ i red t o en gag e i n “indep end ent anal y si s” of the empi r i cal j us t i fi cat i ons and del i ber at i ve undert aki ngs thatl ed t o a part i cul ar-6-

G u id e lin e . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . A g u ila r-Hu e rta , 576 F. 3d 365, __ ( 7th C i r . 2009) ( “[A j udge] s houl d nothave t o del ve i nt o the hi s t oryof a gui del i ne s o thathe ca n s at i s fy h im self tha t th e p roc ess th at pro d u ce d itw as a d eq u ate to p rod u ce a g o o d g u ideline.”); U n itedS ta tes v . D u a rte , 5 6 9 F . 3 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 0 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (“ K i m br ough does notfor ce di s tr i ctorappel l at e court s i nt o a pi ece - by - pi ece anal y s i s of the empi r i cal gr oundi ng b eh ind ea ch p art of

the s en tenc ing g u idelines . ”). A t h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , L o p e z -R e y e s a rg u e d th a t th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e (in part i cular , the 1 6 level i ncrease) “i s di sproport i on at e and i ti s not s up po rt ed thr ou gh case l aw as ci t ed thr ough anytype of e m pi r i cal dat a orr at i onal bas i s s how i ng the nee d fora 16 poi ntenhanc ementthatm ycl i enthas s uffe r ed. ” ( A pp. at73. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tgave h im a f u ll o p p o rtu n ityto e x p lain w h yth e re lev a n t G u id e lin e w a s u n re a so n a b le, b o th in g en era l and as itap p li ed to h is spe cific c ase . H av ing h ea rd f rom b o th p arti es, th e C o u rt not ed that“the gui del i nes r epr es entthe i ns t i tut i onal author i tyof the C om m i s s i on and C ongr es s . ” (I

d. at 77 . ) A lth o u g h the C o u rtstat ed that “a co u rt ’s de term ination [th at] a gui del i ne s ent ence does nots at i s fythe goal s of s ent enci ng i n an or di narycas e w oul d be su b ject t o clos e re v iew , ” itw as a lso e x p li citthat the G u idelines “a re n o lon g er m an d atory and the C our ts houl d us e them i n an advi s oryfas hi on. ” (I d. at77, 80. ) I tthen expl ai ned that“the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on and C ongr es s have de t erm i ned [thatthi s pr ovi s i on] m eet s the goal s of s ent enci ng. ” (I d. at80 . ) Fi nd i ng “no thing bef ore this C ou rtt o sug gest t o the contr ary , ” the C our tdecl i ned t o departfr om the “a dvi s orygui del i ne r ange. ” (Id . at-7-

80- 81. ) T hus , i ti s appar entthatthe C our tw as aw ar e of the di s cr et i onarynatur e of the G ui del i nes and i t s author i tyt o i m pos e a s ent ence out s i de of the pr es cr i bed r ange. I thad no ob l i gati on t o ex erci se that di scr et i on i n fav or of L op ez-R ey es. B . R eas onabl enes s of Lopez- R ey es ’ Sent ence L o p e z -R e y e s n e x t ar g u e s th a t h is 4 6 m o n th se n ten c e is “ su b sta n tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e 1 6 -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t in § 2 L 1 .2 se v e re lyo v e rsta ted th e g ra v ity o f h is illeg a l re e n tryo f

f e n se .” (A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 8 .) In p a rticu lar , h e a rg u e s th a t § 2 L 1 .2 im p o se s a b a se o f f e n se lev e l th a t is e q u a l to o r g re a ter th a n th e lev e l ap p lied to thos e convi ct ed of vi ol entfel oni es , thati t“unfa i r l ycount s cr i m i nal hi s t orytw i ce, ” and th a t it o v e rs ta te s a d e f

e n d a n t’ s p o te n tia l f

o r d a n g e ro u s n e s s a n d ri s k o f re c id iv is m . (I

d. at 1 8 -2 0 .) “I f w e det erm i ne thatthe di s tr i ctcourthas comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , w e then r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan abus e- ofdi s cr et i on s t andar d, r egar dl es s of w hetheri tfal l s w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. ” W ise , 515 F .3 d a t 2 1 8 ; se e G a ll , 552 U . S. at50. D i s tr i ctcourt s ar e r equi r ed t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s as theyappl yt o a part i cul ardefe ndant , and on appe al , the s t andar d of re v iew is d e f

e re n tial. W e w ill a f

f irm th e se n ten c e im p o se d “ u n les s n o re a so n a b le s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on thatpart i cul ardefe ndantfor the r eas ons the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 568 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ).-8-

T he ap pli cable G uidel i nes range h ere i s not r end ered un reas on able s i m plybecau se § 2L 1. 2 es t abl i s hes a bas e off ens e l evel fora nonvi ol entoffe ns e thati s equal t o orgr eat er than thatof ce r t ai n vi ol entoffe ns es . C ongr es s “has the pow ert o defi ne a c r i m e and s et i t s puni s hm ent s . ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Fur therm or e, w i th r es pectt o L opez- R ey es ’ “doubl e count i ng” ar gum ent , w e have

“ re c o g n iz e d th a t th e G u id e lin e s e x p lic itly n o te w h e n d o u b le c o u n tin g is f o rb id d e n .” U ni t ed Stat es v. F is her , 5 0 2 F .3 d 2 9 3 , 3 0 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); s ee al s o U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 c m t. n. 6 ( “A convi ct i on t aken i nt o acc ountunders ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) i s notexcl uded fr om c o n sid e ra tio n o f

w h e th e r th a t co n v ictio n re c e iv e s c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts . . . .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. R ui

z - Ter r az as , 4 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ [ W ]e h a v e ro u tin e ly u p h eld a s rea so n ab le th e u se o f p ri o r co n v ict ion s to c alcu lat e b o th the crim inal h ist o ry cat egoryand a s ent ence enhanc ementw her e . . . the G ui del i nes author i ze i t . ”) . L opezR e y e s’ c laim th a t th e se n ten c e h e re c e iv e d re su lted f ro m a G u id e lin e th a t m isju d g e d h is p o te n tia l f

o r d a n g e ro u s n e s s a n d ri s k o f re c id iv is m is e q u a lly w ith o u t m e ri t. L o p e z -R e y e s a rg u e s n e x t th a t g iv e n h is “ a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili tyf

o r h is a c tio n s, sym p a th e tic re a so n s f o r re e n ter in g th e U n ited S tate s, ste a d yw o rk h isto ryw h ile in the U ni t ed St at es and a r el at i ve [s i c] m oder at e cr i m i nal hi s t ory , i tw oul d appea rthatt he s t a tu t o ry d i r e c t i v e s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 3 3 5 3 ( a ) w o u l d h a v e b e e n b e t t e rs e r v e d b y a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at26 . ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he D i s tr i ct C our tcons i der ed thes e fa ct or s , buti tdi d nots har e Lopez- R ey es ’ concl us i on. I tnot ed-9-

thatL opez- R ey es had bee n deport ed on otherocca s i ons , and i ti nqui r ed i nt o hi s cr i m i nal pas t . T he C our tal s o gave hi m cr edi tw her e i tw as des erved: A ppel l ant ’ s A t t orney : L opez- R ey es di d avai l hi m s el f t o a pr offe rs es s i on re late d to a c tiv ityh e k n e w o f c o y o tes tak in g p e o p le acr os s the bor der. . . i tdi d notm eetthe l evel of su b sta n tial a ss ista n c e , b u t n o n e th e les s h e d id a v a il hi m s el f t o cooper at e. D i stri ctC ou rt : Y ou are get t i ng go od grades. A ppel l ant : T hank Y ou. D i s tr i ctC our t : Y ou thi nk y ou coul d do a l i t t l e bett erthan a hundr ed? A ppel l ant : Y es . I tr i ed t o behave w el l and t o hel p outi n chur ch and hel p otherpeopl e. D is tr ic t C o u rt : W e ll, yo u ’v e d o n e w e ll. ( A pp. at84- 85. ) N onethel es s , the C our tnot ed thathow evergood L opez- R ey es ’ m ot i ves f o r r e e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s w e re , h e b ro k e th e la w a n d ille g a lly e n te re d th re e tim e s . I ts t at ed thathi s s ent ence w as i nt ended t o det erhi m s peci fi cal l y , as w el l as pr ovi de gener al det err ence t o other s , and i tconcl uded thatthe s ent ence “w i l l pr om ot e r es pectfor the l aw and w i l l be an opportuni tyforthe def endantt o cont i nue the educ at i onal tr ai ni ng thathe has r ece i ved thathe thus faras [s i c] has done w el l at . ” (I d. a t 9 0 -9 1 .) W ith th a t, i t r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s cal l fora s ent ence i n the mi ddl e of the G ui del i nes r ange, and i ns t ead s ent ence d L opez- R ey es t o 46 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent– the bott om of the r ange – f o llo w e d b ya ter m o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se f

o r th re e y e a rs. B e c a u se th is s e n ten c e “ f a lls w i thi n the br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” W ise , 515 F. 3d at218.-10- CONCL US I ON T h e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e w ill b e a f

f ir m e d .