2007 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 2-5-2007 

# U SA v . B rown 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 . 06-2822

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_2007

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 2007 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 . B r own" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1678. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1678NOT 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 C as e N o. : 06- 2822 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L I S A A. BR OWN, A ppel l ant

____________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D istri ct C o u rtN o . : 03 -cr-00 3 5 4 -8 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge* ( Fi l ed: February5, 2007 )

____________________ OP I NI ON

____________________

_____________________ *T he H onor abl e W i l l i am H . Y ohn J r . , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

Y O H N , D is tr i ct

Judge . L isa A . B ro w n a d m itt e d to v io latin g th e c o n d iti o n s o f h e r p ro b a tio n . A s a re su lt, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt re v o k e d h e r p ro b a tio n a n d s e n te n c e d h e r t o f iv e m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. Br o wn a p p e a l s t h e j u d g me n to f s e n t e n c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. B r ow n w as acc or di ngl ychar ged on M ay6, 2003 w i t h pr oduci ng and us i ng f ictitio u s f

in a n c ial in stru m e n ts p u rp o rte d lyu n d e r th e a u th o rityo f th e U n ited S tate s, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 7 1 a n d 5 1 4 . T h e in d ic tm e n t a ls o c h a rg e d s e v e n c o -d e f e n d a n ts . On S e p t e mb e r9 , 2 0 0 4 , Br o wn p l e d g u i l t yt o a s u p e r s e d i n g i n f o r ma t i o n c h a r g i n g Br o wn w i t h m i s pr i s i on of a f

el ony : cons pi r acyt o pas s and pos s es s fal s e and f i ct i t i ous i n s t ru me n t s o f

t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . On J a n u a r y4 , 2 0 0 5 , th e Di s t r i c tCo u r ts e n t e n c e d Br o wn t o t w o y ear s of pr obat i on, r equi r ed fourm onths of hom e conf i nement , and i m pos ed a f i ne of one thous and dol l ar s . O n J une 20, 2005, the Pr obat i on O ffi ce f i l ed a pe t i t i on w i t h the D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng B r ow n had vi ol at ed herpr obat i on by : ( 1) fai l i ng t o r epor tt o the Pr obat i on O ffi ce f

ora mandat or ycol l ect i on of a D N A bl ood s ampl e, ( 2) fai l i ng t o s eek law f u l em p lo ym e n t o r d o c u m e n t h e r c laim e d se lf -e m p lo ym e n t, (3 ) re f

u sin g to a c c e p t m a il s entbyt he Pr obat i on O ffi ce, and ( 4) fai l i ng t o s ubm i tt o a r equi r ed mont hl ys upervi s i on re p o rt. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a s um m ons forB r ow n t o appea rata hea r i ng s chedul ed forJ ul y7, 2005. B r ow n fai l ed t o at t end. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts chedul ed anotherhear i ng fo r S ep tem b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . B row n ag ain f ail ed to attend . A s a re su lt , the D istri ct C o u rtThe sug g ested sentence f or the proba

tion violation was based on a violation that wa s GradeC 1 and a Criminal History

of Categ ory

I . The now- advisory

sentenc ing rang e for

the orig inal o f f e n s ew a s b a s e d

o na t o t a lO f f e n s eLe v e lo f

n i n ean d a C ri m i n a lH i s t o r

y C at e g o r y I. 3 i s s ued a w arr antforB r ow n’ s arr es t . Forthr ee mont hs ther eaf t er , B r ow n r emai ned a fugi t i ve. A ut hor i t i es eventual l yarr es t ed B r ow n on J anuary20, 2006. O n February2, 2006, B r ow n deni ed vi ol at i ng herpr obat i on. O n February23, 2006, as a r es ul tof B ro w n ’s o d d b e h a v io r a n d sta tem e n ts– w h ich n e a rlyled th e D istric t C o u rt to h o ld h e r in co n tem p t–the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e c o m p eten cyev alua ti o n req u ested b yB row n ’s c o u n se l. B ro w n c laim e d th a t, as a M o o rish A m e ric a n N a tio n a l, sh e w a s n o t re q u ire d to compl yw i t h l ocal , s t at e, and fe der al l aw s . C ather i ne B arber , Ph. D . , eval uat ed B r ow n and f o u n d h e r c o m p e ten t. O n A pr i l 18, 2006, B r ow n admi t t ed t o vi ol at i ng herpr obat i on byr efus i ng t o acc ept m ail sen t bythe P rob ati o n O ff ice. T h e re m ainin g ch arg es w ere d ism issed . T h e c o u rt hel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng t hatl as t ed fortw o day s . A tthe hea r i ng, D r . B arbert es t i fi ed t hatB r ow n w as compet ent . A ft ercons i der i ng the r ange of s ent ence s s ugges t ed bythe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes fort he pr obat i on vi ol at i on–t hr ee t o ni ne mont hs of 1 i m pr i s onm ent–and fort he or i gi nal offe ns e of mi s pr i s i on of a f el ony–fourt o ni ne mont hs of i m pr i s onm ent–t he D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked Brow n’ s s ent ence and s ent ence d hert o fi ve m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t on M ay1 5 , 2 0 0 6 . In re ac h ing that sen tenc e, th e D istri ct C o u rt not ed, i n par t i cul ar , t he s i gni fi canc e of Brow n’ s fr aud aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es and her b re a c h o f

th e c o u rt’s tru st. B ro w n tim e lya p p e a led th e ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e . O n a p p e a l,4

B row n arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to co n side r ex p li cit lyall o f th e re leva n t fac tors e n u m e ra ted in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), an d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p o se d a n u n re a so n a b le s ent ence . W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 b e c a u se it i s a fi nal deci s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t , and pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) ( 1) for s e n te n c e s im p o s e d in v io la tio n o f th e la w . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 2006 U . S. A pp. L E X IS 8 0 7 5 , at ** 5 -9 (3 d C ir . F eb . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ). B efor e U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 53 4 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , w e r evi ew ed s ent ence s i m pos ed forvi ol at i ons of pr obat i on ors upervi s ed r el eas e for“abus e of di s cr et i on t hatr es ul t ed i n a ‘ pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e’ s ent ence . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 847, 852 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw egel , 126 F. 3d 551, 555 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ) . B r ow n cont ends that , i n l i ghtof B ooker , the “ p lain ly unr eas onabl e” s t andar d of r evi ew has been r epl ace d w i t h one of “ r eas onabl enes s . ” B eca us e w e conc l ude thatB r ow n’ s s ent ence s at i s fi es ei t hers t andar d, w e nee d not det erm i ne att hi s t i m e w hi ch s t andar d appl i es t o s ent ence s i m pos ed forvi ol at i ons of pr obat i on. B r ow n br oadl yas s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o art i cul at e expl i ci t l y , on the re c o rd , its c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . W e f

in d o th e rw is e . U n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3565( a) ( 2) , i f a “ defe ndantvi ol at es a condi t i on of pr obat i on atanyt i m e pr i ort o t he expi r at i on . . . of pr obat i on, t he courtm ay , aft era hea r i ng . . . , and af t ercons i der i ng t he fac t or s s etfor t h i n [§] 3553( a) t o t he ext enttheyar e appl i cabl e . . . r evoke the s ent ence of5

p r o b a t i o n a n d r e s e n t e n c e t h e d e f e n d a n tu n d e rs u b c h a p t e rA . ” § 3 5 6 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y, t he D i s t r i ctC oul d s houl d cons i derthe non- bi ndi ng pol i cys t at ement s of G ui del i nes M a n u a l C h a p te r 7 . See § 3 5 5 3 (a )(4 )(B ). T h e D istric t C o u rt n e e d n o t m a k e sp e c if ic f in d in g s w ith re s p e c t to e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs th a t it c o n s id e re d . C ooper , 2006 U . S . A p p . L E X IS 8 0 7 5 , at ** 1 1 . R athe r, the re co rd m u st sho w that the D istri ct C o u rt g a v e m e a n in g f

u l co n sid e ra tio n to th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d a d d re ss e d th e a rg u m e n ts ra is e d b yth e p a rt ie s th a t h a v e re c o g n iz e d le g a l m e ri t. Id . T he r ecor d m akes abundant l ycl earthatthe D i s t r i ctC our tm eani ngful l ycons i der ed th e re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs. In f

a c t, th e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitlya rticu late d its cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s s t at ed above . ( J . A . 371- 381. ) N otonl ydi d i tcons i der B r ow n’ s br eac h of the court ’ s t rus t , butthe D i s t r i ctC our tal s o cons i der ed the natur e of herpr obat i on vi ol at i ons and under l y i ng offe ns e, herdi s r es pectforthe court , and the nee d fo r de terrenc e. A fter “tak ing into a cc o u n t al l th e f ac tors u n d er [ § ] 35 5 3 (a)” (J.A . 3 7 7 ), t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B r ow n t o fi ve mont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . T her efor e, aft er r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tadequa t el ycons i der ed the § 35 53 (a) fact ors. B r ow n al s o ar gues t hathers ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e herpr obat i on v io latio n w a rra n ted len ien c y . S h e a ss e rts th a t h e r se n ten c e is g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ryto ful fi l l t he purpos es of s ent enci ng. I n s uppor tof thi s as s ert i on, B r ow n not es thather pr obat i on vi ol at i on w as non- vi ol entand i nfl uence d byherr el i gi ous bel i efs and6

me mb e r s h i p t o t h e M o o r i s h Am e r i c a n T e mp l e . We r e j e c tth i s a r g u me n t . As s h o wn bel ow , i n r eac hi ng B r ow n’ s s ent ence , the D i s t r i ctC our tappr opr i at el ycons i der ed B r ow n’ s r eques tforl eni encydue t o herr el i gi ous bel i ef a nd the ci r cumst ance s s u rr o u n d in g h e r p ro b a tio n v io la tio n . (J .A . 3 6 9 -8 0 .) T he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd t hat B row n’s cond uct, w hil e on probati on , w as the m ost “contum aci ous and di s r es pect ful ” of a nydefe ndantt o have c om e bef or e the court . T he D istri ct C o u rtn o ted th at B row n h ad d isr eg ard ed the in stru cti o n s o f h er p rob ati o n o ff icer, r efus ed t o r ece i ve mai l fr om t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce, and fa i l ed t o appea rforhear i ngs r egar di ng herpr obat i on vi ol at i ons . Fur t her , the D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed the i nfl uence of B r ow n’ s r el i gi ous bel i efs and mem ber s hi p t o t he M oor i s h A m er i can Tem pl e, butfound that o thers w h o sh are d the s am e b eli ef sy stem d id n o t brea k the law . In li g h t of B row n ’s i nvol vementi n a s i gni fi cantfr aud aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es –w hi ch “di d notappea rt o be cas ual ors por adi c” ( J . A . 378) –and herm i s conductdur i ng pr obat i on, the courtrul ed out co n ti n u ing an d ex tend ing h er p rob ati o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed that “[ i] t’ s n ec essa ryto [ d eter] oth ers f rom p arti cipa ti n g in su ch sch em es” an d to “d eter an yfu ture cr i m i nal conductbyM s . B r ow n. ” ( J . A . 379. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o t ook i nt o acc ount the m it igating fa ctors, i n clud ing B row n ’s rem o rse f o r he r m isco n d u ct an d h er m o ther’s need f oras s i s t ance . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our taddi t i onal l ynot ed thataft erherpr evi ous se n ten c in g , B ro w n “ d id n ’t k e e p h e r p ro m ise a n d se e m e d a s v iru len t as e v e r in u n d e rm in in g th e p ro b a tio n d e p a rtm e n t as sh e h a d p re v io u slya ttem p ted to u n d e rm in e th is7

forum . ” ( J . A . 380. ) A ft ercons i der i ng thes e fa ct or s , the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a sent ence tow ard the low er- end of the range sug gest ed b ythe sentenci ng gu i deli nes. T hu s, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as notunr eas onabl e. W e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s i n arr i vi ng atB r ow n’ s s ent ence , and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as not “pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e. ” Fur t her , w e conc l ude thatthe s ent ence w as “r eas onabl e. ” T her efor e, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .