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 8-10-2007 

# U SA v . P inks t on 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 . 05-2789

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 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 . P ink s t on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 600. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/600NOT 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 

### No. 05- 2789 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. KENY AT TAPINK ST ON , Ap p ellant ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00342- 2)

N o. 05- 2790 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. MA WUL DAPINK ST ON , Appe l l ant ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00342- 1) 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 i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e G arr ettE . B r ow n, J r . , C hi ef J udge

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

J une 26, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , FU E N T E S, and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t10, 2007)T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he Pi nks t ons w er e i dent i fi ed as the r egul ars uppl i er s of m ar i j uana, coca i ne, and 2 e c s t a c yf o rth e g o v e rn me n tc o o p e r a t o r , a l o c a l d ru g d e a l e r . Th e c h a r g e s s t e mme d f r o m a t ot al of s even c ontr ol l ed drug tr ans act i ons – fourof cr ack c ocai ne and thr ee of pow der coca i ne – byone orboth of the Pi nks t ons dur i ng a thr ee w eek pe r i od. T he t ot al amount o f d ru g s i n v o l v e d i n th e tr a n s a c t i o n s wa s 1 2 6 . 9 g r a ms o f c r a c k c o c a i n e a n d 1 7 6 . 3 g r a ms o f p o w d e r c o c a in e . 2 OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge K eny att a Pi nks t on and M aw ul da Pi nks t on w er e s ent ence d t o t erm s of i m pr i s onm entof 212 m onths and 190 mont hs , r es pect i vel y , and theyappea l . T he D i s tr i ct C our ti m pos ed the s ent ence s aft erw e af fi r m ed the convi ct i ons butr emanded forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). U ni t ed Stat es v. P i nks t on , 1 2 6 F e d . Ap p x . 5 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. T he Pi nks t on br other s , aft eran ei ght - daybench tr i al , w er e convi ct ed of one count o f c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n f i f tyg r a ms o f c ra c k c o c a in e a n d se v e n c o u n ts o f d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te ei ther pow der cocaine or cr ack co cai ne, al l i n co nn ect i on w i th a d rug dis tri bu t i on bu si ness th e y o p e r a t e d i n T r e n t o n , N e w J e r s e y. T h e D istric t C o u rt in iti a llyse n ten c e d K e n y a tta to 2A ll o ther f ac tors b eing eq u al, the s tatu torym an d atorym inim u m sen tenc e f o r a 3 convi ct i on fordeal i ng 5 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne i s the s ame as thatfora convi ct i on for d e a lin g 5 0 0 g ra m s o f

p o w d e r c o c a in e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 240 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T hi s 100: 1 r at i o i s r efl ect ed thr oughoutthe gui del i nes ’ s ugges t ed s ent enci ng ra n g e s . S e e id . at240 n. 4. T h e D istric t C o u rt re

jec ted a s w e ll th e a rg u m e n t ad d re ss e d to th e w e a p o n e n h a n c e m e n t, 4 not i ng thateven i f the bey ond a r eas onabl e doubts t andar d appl i ed, w hi ch i tdi d not , t he e v id e n c e sa tisf

ied th a t sta n d a rd . W e re jec t th e P in k sto n s’ “ e n h a n c e m e n t” a rg u m e n t, w h ic h th e yre ra is e o n a p p e a l to u s , w ith o u t f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n . 3 235 m onths i m pr i s onm entand M aw ul da t o 210 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . O n r emand, and in su p p o rt o f

lo w e r se n ten c e s, th e P in k sto n s p rim a rilyc o n ten d e d th a t B oo ker al l ow ed the D istric t C o u rt to c o n sid e r th e c ra c k c o c a in e /p o w d e r c o c a in e d if f e re n tial a s a n e q u itab le con si derat i on , and po i nted t o the Sen t encing C om m i ssi on ’s recom m end at i on t o C on gress that itree x am ine a n d ad just th e d iffe ren ti al. T h eyalso arg u ed that, u n d er B ooker , a tw o- 3 poi ntenhanc ementpur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) s houl d notappl ybeca us e the D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t f

in d p o s s e s s io n o f

a w e a p o n b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , i n r es pons e, not ed conc erns w i th s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among the cl as s of thos e convi ct ed of c r ack c ocai ne off ens es , as w el l as C ongr es s ’ s pol i cy d ec isi o n , o n m o re tha n o n e o cc asio n , to rejec t th e S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n to a d

ju st th e c ra c k c o c a in e /p o w d e r c o c a in e ra tio , an d sta ted : “I c e rta in ly s houl d cons i derthos e i s s ues . I ’ m notbound bythem. I don’ thave t o do i t , butl ooki ng at the w i s dom of the C ongr es s . . . [and] the s ent enci ng comm i s s i on, I thi nk w e s houl d have p re d icta b ili tya n d p ro p o rtio n a lity .” A p p . 5 0 . It, th u s, re jec ted th e a rg u m e n ts a d d re ss e d to th e c ra c k c o c a in e /p o w d e r c o c a in e d if f e re n tial, c o n tin u in g to b e liev e th a t th e se n ten c e s it

44

or i gi nal l yi m pos ed w er e r eas onabl e and thatl eni encybas ed on the “unf ai rnes s ” of the cra ck co ca ine p en altyw as n o t des erv ed . N ev erthe less, the C o u rt , cre d it ing the lett ers fro m the P ink ston s’ frien d s an d fa m il yan d the s u p p o rto f th eir fam il y , b eli ev ed that m o re l eni ents ent ence s w oul d, nonethel es s , s erve the i nt er es t s of s oci etyand r es ent ence d the Pi nks t ons t o nearthe bott om of the r el evantgui del i ne r anges . W e r evi ew thos e s ent ence s f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overques t i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng the i nt erpr et at i on of the g u id e lin e s ; w h e re f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s w e re m a d e , w e re v ie w f o r c le a r e rr o r. I

d. P o st- B ooker , a d istri ct co u rtm u st un d ertak e a three -st ep sen tenc ing p roc ess. It m u st: (1 ) c a lcu late , as b e f o re , the c o rre c t g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , (2 ) e x p licitlyru le o n a ll m ot i ons , i ncl udi ng departur e mot i ons , and ( 3) exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the re le v a n t f

a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247. T he cr ack coca i ne/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al ar gum ent s w hi ch the Pi nks t ons br i ng befor e us i m pl i cat e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s compl i ance w i th the l as ts t ep. M a w u ld a P in k sto n a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b y“ c a teg o ric a lly r efus i ng” t o cons i derthe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s fi ndi ng thatthe 100: 1 r at i o betw een c ra c k c o c a in e a n d p o w d e r c o c a in e is u n ju stif ied a n d e rre d in re f

u sin g to in d e p e n d e n tly evaluat e t he seri ou sness of crack coca i ne o ffen ses based sol el yon the fa ctthat C on gress had fa i l ed t o acton t he C om m i s s i on’ s fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons . K eny att a Pi nks t on faul t s the D i s tr i ctC our tforbel i evi ng i t s el f bound t o i m pos e a s ent ence w i thi n theB ec au se itw as n o t r aised b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt , w e d o n o t con side r K en y att a’s 5 ar gum ent , w hi ch w e have r ej ect ed bef or e, thatthe cr ack c ocai ne gui del i ne has contr i but ed to u n w a rr a n te d ra c ia l d is p a ri ty. 5 gui del i nes r ange mer el ybeca us e C ongr es s s ai d s o and, i n bel i evi ng i t s el f s o bound, el evat i ng the cr ack c ocai ne el ementof the off ens es overal l otherconce rns and the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s . I ndeed, cont i nues K eny att a, the onl ygoal of s ent enci ng the C our tcons i der ed w as i ncar cer at i on and, thus , he r ece i ved a s ent ence gr eat erthan w as n e c e ss a ry . H e c o n ten d s, f in a lly , tha t w e w e re w ro n g w h e n w e sa id th a t a s e n ten c e w ith in th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e is m o re lik e ly to b e re a s o n a b le th a n o n e o u ts id e th a t r a n g e , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and he w oul d have us s ay , i ns t ead, th a t p o st- B ooker , a g u id e lin e ra n g e is n o th in g m o re th a n a “ su g g e stio n .” (K e n y a tta P in k s to n B r. a t 2 4 ). W e s u m m a ri ly re je c t th is in v ita tio n . 5 T h e P in k sto n s’ r e m a in in g c o n ten tio n s re su lt, in th e ir v iew , in b u t o n e c o n c lu sio n : the s ent ence s w er e t oo l ong and, thus , w er e unr eas onabl e. B utthe var i ous cont ent i ons w h ich e n ab le th em to rea ch this co n clus ion ca n n o t w ith stan d scru ti n y . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d id , forexampl e, cons i derw hatthe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on had uns ucce s s ful l yas ked C on gress t o d o an d m ade itqu i t e cl ear how i tview ed the ser i ou sness of t he P i nk st on s’ offe ns es s epar at e and apartfr om w hatC ongr es s had done orfai l ed t o do – the Pi nks t ons w er e “mul t i - s ubs t ance , s ubs t ant i al drug deal er s , w ho pr es ent ed a c l earand pr es entdanger t o the comm uni ty. . . and do s o atthi s t i m e, ” A pp. 47; they“i m per i l ed the comm uni ty . ” I d. at48. T he C our tfound, m or eover , thatthe cr ack c ocai ne di ffe r ent i al w as a “r eas oned,6

r eas onabl e pol i cychoi ce bythe C ongr es s ” r efl ect i ng C ongr es s ’ s vi ew – w hi ch has been “s t eadf as t ” – thatcr ack c ocai ne dea l er s s houl d be s ent ence d m or e har s hl ythan otherdrug o f f e n d e rs , a v ie w in w h ic h th e C o u rt c o n c u rr e d . I d. at50- 51. T he C our tal s o r ecogni zed the advi s orynatur e of the gui del i nes , i ncl udi ng the cr ack c ocai ne pr ovi s i on; r ecogni zed thati thad the di s cr et i on t o varyfr om the gui del i nes ; and r ecogni zed, even i n advanc e of G unt er , thati tcoul d and s houl d cons i derthe cr ack c ocai ne/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al as p a rt o f its c o n sid e ra tio n o f

§ 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs. It b e liev e d , h o w e v e r, af ter c o n sid e rin g a ll of the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o the cr ack c ocai ne pr ovi s i on, thateac h of the Pi nks t ons ’ gui del i ne r anges , as cal cul at ed, w as appr opr i at e and, al though e x e rc is in g le n ie n c yw ith in th o s e ra n g e s , d e c lin e d to im p o s e s e n te n c e s b e lo w th e m . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tact ed “r eas onabl yi n i m pos i ng the r es ul t i ng s ent ence [s ] , ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329, aft erexer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng t he re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs , w e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n ts o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .