2005 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 8-12-2005 

# U SA v . T orres 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 . 04-1548

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_2005

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 2005 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 . T orr e s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 705. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/705* H onor abl e M i l t on I . Shadur , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he N or t hern D i s t r i ct

of I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 04- 1548

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. I V A N TO RR ES, A ppel l ant

___________________ ON A P P EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

C ase N o . 9 8 -cr-00 3 6 2 -B D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak

___________________ Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a) on J ul y11, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O and B E C K E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and SH A D U R , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2005)

____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________-2-

P E R C U R I A M: D ue t o I van Torr es ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n t he i nves t i gat i on and pr os ecut i on of ot hercr i m i nal s , t he governm entfi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 and 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(e) t o p erm i tt he D i stri ctC ou rtatsent encing t o d epartfrom t he o t herw i se appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i nes r ange a nd t he otherw i s e appl i cabl e mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . O n February23, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . A t th e h ea ri n g the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s dow nw ar d departur e mot i on and s ent ence d T or r es t o 25 y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent . T or r es f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l to th is C o u rt o n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 4 . Al l t h e b r i e f

s i n t h i s c a s e we r e d r a f

t e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y2 0 0 5 , wh e n t h e S u p r e me C o u rt is s u e d its o p in io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . -- -- , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). In B o o k e r, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t “w e m u st a p p lyto d a y ’s h o ld in g s – b o th th e S ix th A m endmenthol di ng and ourr emedi al i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng A ct– t o al l cas es on di r ectr evi ew . ” 125 S. C t . at769 ( B r ey er , J . ) . H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues her e ar e bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e vac at e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker . See gene r al l yU ni t ed S tat es v . D av is, 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B e c a u se w e re m a n d f

o r re -se n ten c in g , w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss T o rre s’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e p a rtu re sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g re a ter . W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t th is C o u rth as a lr ea d yh eld th at i t l ac k s jurisdicti o n to rev iew the e x tent o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s-3-

dow nw ar d departur e. See U ni t ed St at es v. K hal i l , 132 F. 3d 897, 898 ( 3d C i r . 1997) (“[ B ]ec au se ‘w e d id n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to en tert ain a n ap p ea l w h en the d istri ct co u rt re f u se d to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd f ro m th e g u id e lin e s,’ it su re ly fol l ow s t hatw e coul d notpos s i bl yhave j ur i s di ct i on t o hearan appe al bya def endant w her e ther e has been s om e exe r ci s e of the court ’ s di s cr et i on t o departdow nw ar d. ”) (c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . P a rk e r, 9 0 2 F .2 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 0 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e af

fi r m T or r es ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on butvaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng.