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 2-17-2009 

# U SA v . T y Hu ff n agle 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 . 08-1721

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 . T y Hu ff n agle " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1862. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1862NOT 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. 08- 1721

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TY H UFFNA GLE, A p p e llan t.

__________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t 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 ( N o. 3- 06- cr - 00021- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2008 B efore: F ISH E R , C H A G A R E S , and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

_________ ( Fi l ed: February17, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.2 D e f e n d a n t T yH u f

f n a g le a p p e a ls f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to i m po se a 24 m on th p ri son sentence fo r vi olat i on of h i s federal supervi sed rel ease t o run cons ecut i ve t o hi s s t at e par ol e vi ol at i on s ent ence . W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence . I . As we wr i t e ma i n l yf

o rth e p a r t i e s , we o n l yb r i e f l yr e c i t e th e f

a c t s . On A ugus t20, 1998, H uffna gl e w as s ent ence d t o tw o concurr entt erm s of 64 m onths i m pr i s onm entw i th a cons ecut i ve 36 mont hs of s upervi s ed r el eas e af t erpl eadi ng gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of an unr egi s t er ed fi r earm and unl aw ful m aki ng of a w eapon s ubj ectt o t he N at i onal Fi r earm s A ct . 26 U . S. C . § 5861( d) , ( f) . A condi t i on of H u f f n a g le ’s s u p e rv is e d re le a s e w a s th a t h e n o t p o s s e s s a f ir e a rm . A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 2 6 . W h ile u n d e r th e su p e rv isio n o f th e U n ited S tate s P ro b a tio n O f f ice , H u f f n a g le w as arr es t ed af

t era di s put e w i th hi s gi r l fr i end. H uffna gl e’ s gi r l fr i end gave the p o lice c o n se n t to se a rc h th e ir h o m e , w h e re th e p o lice d isc o v e re d sh o tg u n sh e lls a n d a s a w e d o f

f .1 2 g a u g e s h o tg u n in th e ra f te rs in th e b a s e m e n t. O n O ct ober24, 2006, i n s t at e court , H uffna gl e w as s ent ence d t o 111⁄2 m onths t o 23 m onths i m pr i s onm entaft erpl eadi ng gui l tyt o the pr ohi bi t ed o f f e n s iv e w e a p o n s c h a rg e . A t th e s u b s e q u e n t f e d e ra l p a ro le re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g , a M a g istra te J u d g e f

o u n d th a t, by a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , the re w a s “ a m p le p r o o f ” o f th e Gr a d e A v i o l a t i o n th a ta f o r me rc o n v i c ts h o u l d n o tp o s s e s s a f i r e a r m, of the G r ade B vi ol at i on fora vi ol at i on of s t at e cr i m i nal l aw , and of the G r ade C3

vi ol at i on foras s oci at i ng w i th a convi ct ed fe l on and pos s es s i ng a dange r ous w eapon. A pp. 14. T he maxi m um t i m e thatH uffna gl e coul d s erve, how ever , w as 24 m onths beca us e hi s or i gi nal fi r earm s offe ns e w as a C l as s C fel ony . A pp. 14- 15; 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) ; U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 4( a) . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatH uffna gl e s houl d r ece i ve the maxi m um se n ten c e o f

2 4 m o n th s a n d th a t itsh o u ld b e se rv e d c o n se c u tiv e to a n yo th e r sta te s ent ence . A pp. 15. T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, r evoki ng H uffna gl e’ s s upervi s ed re lea se a n d se n ten c in g h im to 2 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, t o ru n c o n se c u tiv e to h is st at e parol e viol at i on sent ence. H uff nag l e no w app eal s. II. 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 . § 3231. W e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew b o th the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent ence and i t s i m pos i t i on of a c oncurr entorcons ecut i ve s ent ence foran abus e of di s cr et i on. G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. S w a n , 2 7 5 F .3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n r evi ew i ng H uffna gl e’ s s ent ence , fi r s t , w e mustdet erm i ne thatthe D i s tr i ct C our t“comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , ” s uch as “fa i l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s . . . orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n the chos en s ent ence . . . . ” G all , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 59 7 ; see U n it ed S tat es v . S m all ey , 5 1 7 F . 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 4 (3d C ir . 2008) . I f the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e then r evi ew the s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d,4

“t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . ” G al l , 128 S. C t . at197; s ee S m a lle y , 3 1 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 4 . I n r evi ew i ng the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi l e w e “do not see k to se co n d g u ess,” w e n ev erthe less m u st assu re o u rselve s tha t th e d istri ct co u rt has gi ven us an “e xpl anat i on. . . s uffi ci entforus t o s ee thatthe part i cul ar ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e have been gi ven meani ngful cons i der at i on w i thi n the p ara m eters o f § 3 5 5 3 (a), ” U n it ed S tat es v . L ev inso n , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 2008) , and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ade a n “i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entbas ed on the fac t s pr es ent ed. ” G al l , 128 S. C t . at597; L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d at196. I n addi t i on, “[t ] he s ent enci ng j udge s houl d s etfor th enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthat he has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i ty . ” R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2 4 6 8 (2 0 0 7 ). III . H uffna gl e pr es ent s tw o ar gum ent s on appea l . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rterred b ec au se it“f ail [e d ] t o ex p lai n o r recit e w h ya 2 4 m o n th se n tenc e is m o re appr opr i at e ornece s s arythan a 12 or18 m onth s ent ence ” w hen the gun thatw as r ecove r ed w as r emoved fr om the s cene of hi s arr es t . A ppel l antB r . at10- 12. Second, H uffna gl e ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o expl ai n w hya cons ecut i ve s ent ence w as “r easona ble orno tgreat er than necessary ” un der the cir cum st ances o f t he case w h e re H u f

f n a g le d id n o t a c tu a lly u s e th e g u n . A p p e lla n t B r. a t 1 2 -1 3 .F u rth e rm o re , w h ile 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (c ) re q u ire s a se n ten c in g c o u rt to 1 “ sta te in o p e n c o u rt th e re a so n s f o r its im p o sitio n o f

th e p a rticu lar se n ten c e ,” it o n lyre q u ire s th e se n ten c in g c o u rt to sta te th e “ re a so n f o r im p o sin g a se n ten c e a t a p a rt ic u la r p o in t w ith in th e ra n g e ” if th e s e n te n c e is m o re th a n 2 4 m o n th s . 5 W e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w as pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. T he C our tadequa t el yaddr es s ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and H uffna gl e gene r al l ydoes not cont es tthi s concl us i on. H uffna gl e’ s m ai n obj ect i on i s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not s peci fi cal l ym ake f

i ndi ngs thata l es s ers ent ence w oul d have s uffi ced gi ven thatthe gun w as notatthe s cene of the cr i m e. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d expl ai n, for in sta n c e , tha t “th e sta tu to rym a x im u m se n ten c e is re a so n a b le in th is c a se a n d is w a rra n ted in lig h t o f

[ H u f f n a g le’ s] c o n tin u e d f

a ilu re to p re v e n t in v o lv e m e n t w ith fi r earm s . ” A pp. 164. See al s o A pp. 162 ( expl ai ni ng thatH uffna gl e’ s “hi ghes tgr ade vi ol at i on conductw as s i m i l art o hi s or i gi nal fede r al vi ol at i on conducti n 1998 and w as a veryser i ou s offen se, as i s possess i on of a f i rearm no ton l yi l l egal i n thathe is a f e lo n , b u t f

ire a rm s a re in stru m e n ts o f v io len c e .”); A p p . 1 6 3 (e x p lain in g th a t H u f f n a g le knew he w as unders upervi s i on fr om both the fe der al and s t at e l evel s , and thathe

“ w a s a w a re th a t h e w a s a c o n v icte d f e lo n , [a n d ] th a t h a v in g su c h sta tu s p ro h ib its h is pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm . . . ”) ; i d. ( s t at i ng thatH uffna gl e “ha s fai l ed t o s t ayaw ayfr om fi r earm s and hi s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e w arr ant s a new ter m o f im p riso n m e n t w ith n o ter m o f su p e rv isio n to f

o llo w .”). T h u s, d e sp ite

1 H uffna gl e’ s ar gum ent s , w e fi nd thatthe s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. D r agon, 471 F. 3d 501, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng thatD i s tr i ct6

J udges ar e not“r equi r ed. . . t o r out i nel ys t at e thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed i s the m in im u m s e n te n c e n e c e s s a ry. . . .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e in th is c a s e w a s a ls o s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . T he C our tcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and made a det erm i nat i on thata 24- m on th sentence w as r easona ble, becau se, am on g o ther con si derat i on s, the o ffen se ati s s ue i nvol ved the pos s es s i on of a gun thatH uffna gl e knew he w as notperm i t t ed t o have. A pp. 162- 164. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcl ear l yt ook i nt o acc ountthe ci rcum st ances o f t he case w hen , for i nst ance, i tfou nd that “the d efen dan t ’s highest gr ade vi ol at i on conduct[i n t he i ns t antcas e] w as s i m i l art o hi s or i gi nal fede r al vi ol at i on i n 1998 and w as a verys er i ous offe ns e . . . . ” A pp. 162. T hus , w e fi nd thatthe s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. W e f u rth e r f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it f o u n d th a t a c o n se c u tiv e , rath e r th a n a c o n c u rre n t, se n ten c e w a s a p p ro p ria te in th is cas e. H uffna gl e obj ect s t o t he C our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence b e c a u s e h e d id n o t a c tu a lly u s e th e f ir e a rm d u ri n g th e c o m m is s io n o f th e o f f e n s e . H ow ever , under18 U . S. C . § 3584( a) and ( b) , the C our thas di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe s ent ence s s houl d run cons ecut i vel yorconcurr ent l y , and s houl d m ake i t s deci s i on i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s . See U ni t ed St at es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 847, 851- 52 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “18 U . S. C . § 3584( a) contr ol s and perm i t s a di s tr i ct courtt o i m pos e cons ecut i ve t erm s of i m pr i s onm entupon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed re le a s e . . . .” ).7 H e re , the D istric t C o u rt, as it w a s p e rm itt e d to d o , ex e rc ise d its d isc re tio n to h a v e th e se n ten c e s ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly . In d e e d , as th e G o v e rn m e n t ap tlyp o in ts o u t, the D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed thi s i s s ue expl i ci t l y , expl ai ni ng how the def endant knew he w as acc ount abl e t o both Penns y l vani a and the fe der al s y s t em, and w as s ubj ectt o puni s hm entunderboth. G overnm entB r . at22- 23; A pp. 162- 63. T he D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o d e te rm in e d its s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e f a c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) . T he C our t , ther efor e, pr oper l ym ade i t s deci s i on as r equi r ed under18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 4 . V . A c c o rd in g ly, 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 .