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 6-10-2009 

# U SA v . H e rm an M e rc a do 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 . 08-1410

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 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 . H e rm an M e r ca do " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1206. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1206NOT 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- 1410 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HE RMAN M E RC ADO, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00318- 002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d G A R T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and PA D O V A , D i s t r i ctJ udge*. ( Fi l ed: J une 10, 2009)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan t H e rm a n M e rc a d o p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to

____________________ * H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . U n itedS ta tes v . T

a n n is , 942 F. 2d 1 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 2 d is tr ib u te f

if ty g ra m s o r m o re o f

“ c ra c k ” c o c a in e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed j udgm entand s ent ence d M er cado t o 120 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on, the s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence under 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A )( iii) . M e rc a d o a p p e a ls th e s e n te n c e o n s e v e ra l g ro u n d s . M e rc a d o ’s a tto rn e ym o v e d to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l an d f iled a b rie f

in a c c o rd a n c e w ith A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). F in d in g n o n o n -f riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts in s uppor tof M er cado’ s appea l , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entand s ent ence of the D i s t r i ct Co u r ta n d g r a n tt h e mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w. 1 I n as s es s i ng an A nd ers br i ef, w e mustdet erm i ne: 1) w hethercouns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d and expl ai ned w hythe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ues of ar guabl e mer i t ; and 2) w hetherouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonf ri v o lo u s is s u e s . U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); T h ird C irc u it L . A . R . 109. 2( a) . I f the A nd ers br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on i t s fac e, w e w i l l confi ne our i nq uiryt o the port i on s of t he record i den t i fi ed in an ap pell ant’ s pro se b ri ef an d co u n sel’s A nd ers b ri e f. Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d at301. H ere, cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on i t s fac e. C ouns el i dent i fi ed thr ee gener al gr ounds forchal l engi ng a convi ct i on and s ent ence bas ed on a gui l t ypl ea – j ur i s di ct i on, val i di t yand vol unt ar i nes s of the pl ea, and l egal i t yand r eas onabl enes s of theB efor e the adopt i on of A m endment706 i n N ovemberof 2007, the Sent enci ng 2 G ui de l i ne s r e fl e c t e d a un i fo r m 100 t o 1 c r a c k/po w de rc oc a i ne di s pa r i t y . U . S. S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN U A L § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 2006) ( amended N ov. 2007) . U nder A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 , th e ra tio v a ri e s , a t d if f e re n t o f f e n s e le v e ls , b e tw e e n 2 5 to 1 a n d 8 0 to 1 . U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(20 0 8 ). 3 se n ten c e – a n d th o ro u g h lye x p lain e d w h yth e re w e re n o a rg u a b lya p p e a lab le is su e s in M er cado’ s cas e. T her efor e, w e r es t r i ctouranal y s i s t o t he i s s ues r ai s ed bycouns el and M ercado in hi s pro se br i ef. Fi r s t , M er cado a r gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed, butfai l ed, t o exami ne di s par i t i es i n t he pena l t i es pr es cr i bed forcr ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne off ens es ( “cr ack- coca i ne di s par i t y ”) undert he U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . A s s uppor tforthe per 2 s e rul e urged , M ercado cit es K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U . S . 8 5 (20 0 7 ). In K i m br ough , the S u p re m e C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t a d istric t co u rt m ay – n o t th a t it m u st

– c o n s id e r t h e c ra c k -c o c a in e d is p a ri ty in its a n a lysis o f th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . Id . A ccor di ngl y , s i nce K i m br ough w as deci ded, tw o cour t s of appe al s have e xpr es s l yr ej ect ed a c ateg o ri ca l ru le m an d ati n g co n side rati o n o f th e c rac k -co ca ine d ispa ri tyu n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ) i n e v e ry c a s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , 5 1 7 F . 3 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 5 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B er

ggr en , 2 6 7 F ed . A p p x . 8 6 8 , 8 7 0 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). M erc ad o ’s in sis ten c e th a t th e c ra c k -c o c a in e d isp a rityw a s “ u n w a rra n ted ” u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) is par t i cul ar l yunper s uas i ve her e, as t he C our ti m pos ed the s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence , and i tw as i dent i cal t o t hatw hi ch M er cado w oul d have r ece i ved underA m endment706 of the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s .4

Second, M er cado a s s er t s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tbel i eved – e r r oneous l y– t hatt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e mandat ory , and thata dow nw ar d departur e t o r efl ectthe cr ack- coca i ne di s par i t yw as pr ohi bi t ed. Forhi s pos i t i on, M er cado r el i es ent i r el yon the C our t ’ s fai l ur e s peci fi cal l yt o ci t e K i m br ough ; M er cado c oncede s thatther e i s no aff i r m at i ve evi dence i n t he r ecor d of anym i s appr ehens i on. I n anyevent , w e i dent i fy c lea r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd e v in c in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s a w a re n e ss o f its d isc re tio n to devi at e fr om t he G ui del i nes . T he C our ts t at ed, “A l t hough I am re qui r ed t o s t artw i t h t he G ui del i nes as an i ni t i al benchmar k, I w i l l notpr es um e thatthe G ui del i nes i s [s i c] re a so n a b le. R a th e r, I w ill m a k e a n in d iv id u a lize d a ss e ss m e n t b a se d u p o n th e f a c ts present ed. ” A . 19 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so ci t es U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , wh e r e we r ecogni zed a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on t o devi at e fr om the G ui del i nes . 462 F. 3d 237, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n G un t er, w e s t at ed, “a s ent enci ng courterr s w hen i tbel i eves thati thas no di s cr et i on t o cons i dert he cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al i ncorpor at ed i n t he G ui del i nes , ” and that“di s t r i ctcour t s m aycons i derthe cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al in th e G u id e lin e s a s a f

a c to r, b u t n o t a m a n d a te, in th e p o st- B ookers e n te n c in g p ro c e s s .” Id . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yunder s t ood t hatthe G ui del i nes w er e advi s or yr athert han mandat or y , w e r ej ectM er cado’ s s econd c ont ent i on. F i nall y , M ercado argue s that hi s sent ence sh ou l d b e vaca t ed an d h i s base offe nse l evel r eca l cul at ed underan amendm entt o t he G ui del i nes thatw as adopt ed af t erentr yof hi s gui l t ypl ea. M er cado’ s ar gum entfai l s atthe out s et , how ever , beca us e he w as5

sen tenc ed u n d er A m en d m en t 70 6 an d , as in d icated ea rl ier, rec eive d the s tatu tory m i ni m um s ent ence . A . 20. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatC ouns el fi l ed an a dequat e A nd ers br i ef, and thatouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s no appea l abl e i s s ues of ar guabl e mer i t . T her efor e, w e w i l l A FFIRM the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand GR ANT Co u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w.