2010 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 4-13-2010 

# U SA v . P aul S urine 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 . 09-3345

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_2010

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 2010 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 aul S urine " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1519. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1519The Honorable L egrome D. D avis, District Judg e for the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 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. 09- 3345

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. P A U L S U R IN E , A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from 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 . N o. 4: 07- cr - 00304) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

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

February5, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui t Judges , a n d D A V IS , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2010)

__________O n S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied S u rin e ’s p ro se m o tio n to 2 w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea w i thoutpr ej udi ce be caus e Sur i ne w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el but f ile d th e m o tio n o n h is o w n . 2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ D A V IS , D is tr i ct

Judge In th is a p p e a l, P a u l S u rin e c h a llen g e s th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n s to w ith d ra w h is gui l typl ea a nd the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . Forthe re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.

I. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(a) . B ecause w e w ri te ex clus ivelyfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l add ress o n lythe f ac ts an d p roc ed u ral hist o ry re le v a n t to o u r r e s o lu tio n o f th e is s u e s ra is e d in th is a p p e a l. O n M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , p u rsu a n t to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t, S u rin e e n ter e d a p lea to C ou nt O ne o f t he S up ercedi ng Indi ct m ent chargi ng con spi racyt o d i stri bu t e and po sses s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 o r m o re g ra m s o f c o c a in e b a s e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . Sur i ne’ s pr o s e mot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea w as deni ed as havi ng no m er i ton Sept ember25, 2008. O n M ar ch 26, 2009, Sur i ne fi l ed a c ouns el ed mot i on t o w i thdr aw 2 h i s g u i l typ l e a wh i c h th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e n i e d b ywr i t t e n o r d e ro n M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 9 . On3

A ugus t5, 2009, Sur i ne w as s ent ence d t o 360 m onths i ncar cer at i on, t o be fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. 00 w as i m pos ed.

II. A. W e tu rn f

irst to S u rin e ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it ref u se d to p e rm it th e w ith d ra w a l o f h is g u ilty p le a . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on forw i thdr aw al of a gui l typl ea f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 2 5 0 F .3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O nce a gui l typl ea ha s been a cce pt ed, a def endantm us tpr es enta fa i rand j us tr eas on t o be perm i t t ed t o w i thdr aw a pl ea of gui l ty . Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( d) ( 2) ( B ) . T he bur den on the d e f e n d a n t to d e m o n s tr a te a f a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n f

o r w ith d ra w a l is s u b s ta n tia l. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H

yde , 52 0 U. S. 670, 676- 77 ( 1997) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. I

s aac , 1 4 1 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 )). In eval uat i ng a mot i on t o w i thdr aw , w e l ook t o thr ee f act or s : ( 1) w hetherthe def endant as s ert s hi s i nnocenc e; ( 2) the s tr ength of the def endant ’ s r eas on forw i thdr aw al of the p le a ; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r t h e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e p re ju d ic e d b yth e w ith d ra w a l. I d. ( ci t i ng Br o wn , 250 F. 3d at815, and U n itedS ta tes v . H

u ff , 8 7 3 F .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 )) . M o re o v e r, “[ b ]a ld a ss e rtio n s o f in n o c e n c e a re in su f

f icie n t to p e rm it a d e f

e n d a n t to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea ” b e c a u se “ [ a ]ss e rtio n s o f in n o c e n c e m u st b e b u ttres se d b yf a c ts4

i n the r ecor d t hats uppor tthe cl ai m ed def ens e. ” I d. at252- 53 ( quot i ng Br o wn , 250 F. 3d at818) . I n addi t i on, the def endant“must. . . gi ve s uffi ci entr eas ons t o expl ai n w hy contr adi ct orypos i t i ons w er e t aken be for e the di s tr i ctcourtand w hyperm i s s i on s houl d be gi ven t o w i thdr aw the gui l typl ea . . . . ” I d. at253 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 979 F .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )) . S u ri n e’s p roo f a s to the firstelem en t of the s tand ard fa il s b ec au se h e d id n o t assert hi s fac tual i nnocenc e i n t he l ow ercourt . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tw r ot e i n i t s M ay12, 2009 o r d e rd e n y i n g th e s e c o n d mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w, P au l Su ri n e is n o t asserti n g h is i n n o ce n ce . In f ac t, the c o u rth as se v era l l ett ers fr om Sur i ne s t at i ng the oppos i t e. I n a handw r i t t en l et ter f rom Sur i ne dat ed A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 8 , S u ri n e s ta te s “ A t t h e t i m e I c o m itte d [ s ic ] t h e s e c ri m e s ...” ( R ec. D oc. N o. 170. ) I n a l ett ers i gned bySur i ne, i ncl uded i n the pr es ent ence re p o rt , S u ri n e w ri te s , “ I g re a tly re g re t h a v in g c o m m itte d th is te rr ib le c ri m e ,” and “A gai n, I w i s h t o expr es s m ys i ncer e r egr etand r emors e forhavi ng comm i t t ed thes e cr i m es and taken up y ourt i m e as w el l as the t i m e of the p ro s e c u to r a n d a tto rn e y s in m yc a s e .” ( A pp. 24- 25. ) M or eover , athi s gui l typl ea he ar i ng, Sur i ne admi t t ed thatfora per i od of tw enty - one mont hs , he and other s us ed hi s r es i dence as a pr i m aryl ocat i on forr ece i vi ng coca i ne and c r ack f

r om s uppl i er s i n N ew Y or k, pr oces s i ng the coc ai ne i nt o cr ack, hel pi ng c u s to m e rs p ro c e s s c o c a in e in to c ra c k , a n d d is tr ib u tin g th e c o c a in e a n d c ra c k . T h u s, it is c lea r th a t S u rin e h a s n o t d e n ied p a rticip a tio n in th e c o n sp ira c yto d is tr ib u te c ra c k c o c a in e , n o r h a s h e d e n ie d th a t h e p e rs o n a lly d is tr ib u te d c ra c k c o c a in e . Fur therm or e, he off

er s no expl anat i on forthe ext ens i ve admi s s i ons of gui l tm ade a tthe pl ea he ar i ng. I ns t ead, hi s pos i t i on befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tand on appe al i s an5

u n su p p o rte d a ss e rtio n th a t th e se a rc h w a rra n t w a s d e f e c tiv e , an d , sin c e p rio r c o u n se l d id notfi l e a mot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence , he w as ther efor e depr i ved of a defe ns e and e nt er ed an i nvol unt arypl ea. W e fi nd no err ori n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatSur i ne f a ile d to a d v a n c e a m e a n in g f u l c la im o f

f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . S e e Br o wn , 250 F. 3d at818 (rejecti n g asse rt ion o f in n o ce n ce w h ere d ef en d an t did n o t den ysh e c o m m itted th e c ri m e); H u ff , 8 7 3 F .2 d a t 7 1 2 (s a m e ). N ext , w e addr es s Sur i ne’ s r eas on forw i thdr aw al , w hi ch i s bas ed on hi s cont ent i on thathe di d notunder s t and the pl ea a gr eementorthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ques t i ons dur i ng t he p le a c o llo q u y . T h e re c o rd b e lie s th e s e c la im s . O u r i n d ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e p lea h ea ri n g tr an script rev ea ls th at th e C o u rt c a re f u llyd isc u ss e d th e m a ter ial te rm s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t w ith S u rin e in a n e f f o rt to ens ur e thatSur i ne under s t ood the t erm s of the agr eement . A tthe hea r i ng, Sur i ne s t at ed u n d e r o a th th a t h is la w y e r e x p lain e d th e g u iltyp lea to h im a t len g th a n d to h is s a tis f a c tio n , a n d th a t h e f

u lly u n d e rs to o d th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t. M or eover , atthe hea r i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tand the pr os ecut orexpl ai ned the i m por tof cert ai n pr ovi s i ons of the agr eementand ver i fi ed Sur i ne’ s under s t andi ng of the t erm s of th e p l e a . T h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s i n c l u d e d th e c h a r g e s t o w h i c h S u r i n e w a s p l e a d i n g g u i l t y, th e f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r th e se c h a rg e s, th e m a x im u m a n d m in im u m p e n a lti e s S u rin e w o u ld f a c e , the a d v iso ryn a tu re o f th e g u id e lin e s, a n d th e f a c t th a t S u rin e c o u ld n o t w ith d ra w h is pl ea mer el ybeca us e he maybe di s s at i s fi ed w i th hi s s ent ence . Sur i ne unequi vocal l yandT h e G o v e rn m e n t sta tes th a t it s w itn e ss e s a re a v a ilab le to tes tifya n d th a t itw o u ld 1 ther efor e notbe pr ej udi ced byw i thdr aw al of the pl ea. H ow ever , as the fi r s tand s econd f a c t o r s o f th e a n a l y s i s d e mo n s tr a t e th a tS u r i n e h a s n o tc a rr i e d h i s s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n , we w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g . S e e J o n e s , 336 F. 3d at255 ( “[T] he G overnm ent need nots how . . . pr ej udi ce w hen a de fenda nthas fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe other f a c to rs s u p p o rt a w ith d ra w a l o f th e p le a .” ). 6 cont i nual l yagr eed thr oughoutthe hea r i ng thathe under s t ood the pr ovi s i ons of the pl ea agr eement , and w e fi nd no evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tSur i ne’ s cl ai m thathe di d not u n d e rs ta n d th e te rm s o f th e a g re e m e n t o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s q u e s tio n s o f h im . B eca us e Sur i ne has notas s ert ed hi s fac tual i nnocenc e and ha s fai l ed t o s etfor t h a su f f icie n t re a so n to p e rm it w ith d ra w a l, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i ons t o w i thdr aw the gui l typl ea. 1 B. S u ri n e a lso a p p ea ls th e len g th o f th e term o f in ca rce rati o n that the D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed. W e r evi ew a s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on byengagi ng i n a pr ocedur al and s u b s ta n tiv e re v ie w o f

th e s e n te n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2009) ( ci t i ng G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ) . Pr ocedur al err or s i ncl ude f a ilu re to a c c u ra te ly ca lc u la te th e G u id e lin e ra n g e , f a ilu re to c o n s id e r t h e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, a n d f

a ilu re to a d e q u a te ly ex p la in th e c h o s e n s e n te n c e . I d. ( ci t i ng G a ll , 552 U . S. at51) . W e r evi ew t he s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I

d. ( ci t i ng G a ll , 55 2 U . S . at51 ). S uri ne rai ses bot h p rocedu ral and subst anti ve ch al l eng es.T he bas e off ens e l evel as s i gned bythe D i s tr i ctC our tw as actual l yl es s than the 2 bas e off ens e l evel of 38 r ecomm ended i n the pr es ent ence r eport , w hi ch s ugges t ed that S u ri n e w a s re s p o n s ib le f o r d is tr ib u tin g o v e r 4 .5 k ilo g ra m s .

7 S u ri n e’s c lai m s o f p roc ed u ral error relate to f ac tual fin d ing s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt m ade w hen ca l cul at i ng hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel . A ppl y i ng the D rug Q uant i tyT abl e s et for th i n G ui del i ne § 2D 1. 1, the D i s tr i ctC our tas s i gned Sur i ne a ba s e off ens e l evel of 36 aft erfi ndi ng thathe di s tr i but ed betw een 1. 5 and 4. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack. T he D i s tr i ct 2 C our tal s o appl i ed a tw o- l evel fi r earm s enhanc ementpur s uantt o G ui del i ne § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) and a f our - l evel aggr avat i ng r ol e enha ncementpur s uantt o G ui del i ne § 3B 1. 1( a) . A ft er addi ng thes e enha ncement s and appl y i ng a thr ee- l evel r educt i on as r ecomm ended i n t he pr es ent ence r eport , the D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed Sur i ne’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel as 39. Sur i ne chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs as t o ( 1) the amountof cr ack thathe had cons pi r ed t o di s tr i but e, ( 2) hi s pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n connec t i on w i th hi s cr i m i nal act i vity , and (3) his rol e i n the con spi racy . T he D i stri ctC ou rtm ade it s fi nd i ng s on these i s s ues aft eracc ept i ng br i efi ng fr om the part i es and hol di ng a tw o- dayevi dent i aryhear i ng. W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t o n th e s e is s u e s f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 463 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Miele , 989 F. 2d 659, 663 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . W hen s ent enci ng a def endant , the di s tr i ctcourtneed o n lyb a se its d e ter m in a tio n s o n th e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e w ith w h ich it i s p re s e n te d . I

d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . M

cD o w e ll , 8 8 8 F .2 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 )) .

“ In f o rm a tio n u se d a s a b a sis f o r se n ten c in g m u st h a v e ‘su f f icie n t in d icia o f

re liab ili tyto8

s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U . S. S. G . § 6A 1. 3( a) ) . W e w i l l exami ne ea ch c la im o f f a c tu a l e rr o r i n tu rn . T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye stim a ted th e a m o u n t o f c ra c k th a t S u rin e c o n sp ire d to d is tr ib u te a n d th e re f

o re u s e d th e c o rr e c t q u a n tity to d e te rm in e th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l. A ccor di ng t o Sur i ne, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on on drug quant i tyhas no “conc l us i ve bas i s ” i n the r ecor d beca us e no w i tnes s t es t i fi ed thatSur i ne s peci fi cal l ydi s tr i but ed betw een 1. 5 and 4. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack. A l though a courtm aynotbas e i t s cal cul at i ons as t o drug quant i tyon “mer e s pecul at i on, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol lado , 975 F. 2d 985, 998 ( 3d C ir.1 9 9 2 ), a c o u rt is p e rm itt e d “ a d e g re e o f e stim a tio n ” w h e n a rriv in g a t a s p e c if ic q u a n tity d e te rm in a tio n , U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 203 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. P aul i no , 996 F. 2d 1541, 1545 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . C our t s m ayes t i m at e drug quant i tyus i ng a var i etyof evi dent i arys our ces , i ncl udi ng t es t i m onyof code fenda nt s about the amountof drugs the def endanttr ans por t ed and the ave r age a m ount s s ol d perday m u ltip lie d b yth e le n g th o f tim e s o ld . G i bbs , 190 F. 3d at204 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he D is tr ic t C o u rt d id ju s t th a t w h e n it e s tim a te d th e a m o u n t o f c ra c k th a t S u ri n e d is tr ib u te d . B as ed on the t es t i m onyof s ever al w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng one of Sur i ne’ s s ons , another cocons pi r at or , and s ever al cus t om er s , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as abl e t o appr oxi m at e the amount of coc ai ne and c r ack thatw as del i ver ed t o Sur i ne’ s r es i dence , the amountof coca i ne thatw as pr oces s ed i nt o cr ack, and the amountof cr ack thatSur i ne s ol d overt he l ength of hi s i nvol vementi n the cons pi r acy . B ypr ocee di ng i n thi s fas hi on, the D i s tr i ct9

C our tus ed an a cce pt ed met hodol ogyforcal cul at i ng drug quant i ty . See G i bbs , 190 F. 3d at204. A ppl y i ng thi s m ethodol ogy , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee ded ca ut i ous l yand r eac hed a c o n se rv a tiv e e stim a te w h e n it co n c lu d e d th a t S u rin e p o ss e ss e d w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te b e tw e e n 1 .5 a n d 4 .5 k ilo g ra m s o f c ra c k . W e se e n o c lea r e rro r in th e d ru g q u a n tity f in d in g s . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad a s uffi ci entfac tual bas i s fori t s appl i cat i on of a tw o- l evel fi r earm s enhanc ementpur s uantt o G ui del i ne § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . G ui del i ne § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) pr ovi des thata tw o- l evel i ncr eas e i n an off ens e l evel s houl d be appl i ed i f “a danger ous w eapon ( i ncl udi ng a fi r earm ) w as pos s es s ed” i n connec t i on w i th an off ens e i nvol vi ng drugs . U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T hi s enhanc ement“r efl ect s the i ncr eas ed dange rof vi ol ence w hen drug tr aff i cker s pos s es s w eapons . ” U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, N ot e 3. I n addi t i on, th e “ a d ju stm e n t sh o u ld b e a p p lied if th e w e a p o n w a s p re se n t, un les s it is c lea rly i m pr obabl e thatthe w eapon w as connec t ed w i th the off ens e. ” I d. “[D ] efe ndant s have r ar el ybeen a bl e t o over come t he ‘ cl ear l yi m pr obabl e’ hur dl e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D r oz dow s ki , 313 F. 3d 819, 822 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n m aki ng the “c l ear l yi m pr obabl e” det erm i nat i on, court s r el yon a numberof fa ct or s , i ncl udi ng the type of gun i nvol ved, w hetherthe gun w as l oaded, w hetherthe gun w as s t or ed nea rdrugs ordrug p a ra p h e rn a lia , a n d w h e th e r t h e g u n w a s a c c e s s ib le . I d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). S u rin e a d m its th a t f ire a rm s w e re p re se n t w h ile h e w a s in v o lv e d in th e c o n sp ira c yb u t su m m a rily c o n te n d s th a t it is im p ro b a b le th a t th o s e f ir e a rm s w e re c o n n e c te d to h is d ru g tr a f f ic k in g .10

H ow ever , dur i ng the evi dent i aryhear i ng, the t es t i m onyof s ever al w i tnes s es es t abl i s hed th a t th e re w e re f

ire a rm s in S u rin e ’s m o b ile h o m e a t all tim e s, th a t S u rin e u se d f ire a rm s to pr ot ecthi m s el f dur i ng drug tr ans act i ons , thatSur i ne on one oc cas i on poi nt ed a f i r earm at an i ndi vi dual w ho w as del i ver i ng drugs , thatSur i ne occ as i onal l yfi r ed a gun t o s car e off p u rc h a se rs, a n d th a t S u rin e tra d e d f ire a rm s f o r c ra c k . O v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f th e tw o -l e v e l f

ir e a rm s e n h a n c e m e n t. W ith reg ard to S u ri n e’s last clai m o f f ac tual erro r, w e f

ind that the D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l yappl i ed a f

our - l evel enhanc ementbas ed on Sur i ne’ s aggr avat i ng r ol e i n the c o n sp ira c y . G u id e lin e § 3 B 1 .1 (a ) p ro v id e s f o r a f o u r-le v e l in c re a se in th e o f f e n se lev e l if the d ef en d an t i s an “o rga n izer o r l ea d er o f a crim inal ac ti v itythat inv o lved fiv e o r m o re part i ci pant s orw as otherw i s e ext ens i ve . . . . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( a) . Fact or s fora di s tr i ct courtt o cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hethert o appl ythe aggr avat i ng r ol e enha ncement i ncl ude the exe r ci s e of de ci s i on m aki ng author i ty , the natur e of pa r t i ci pat i on i n the o f f e n se , the re c ru itm e n t o f a c c o m p lice s, th e c laim e d rig h t to a lar g e r sh a re o f th e p ro f its o f th e c ri m e, th e d eg ree o f p arti cipa ti o n in p lann ing o r org an izi n g the o ff en se, th e n ature and s cope of

the i l l egal act i vi ty , and the degr ee of contr ol and author i tyexer ci s ed over o th e rs . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i cco , 277 F. 3d 339, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H unt er , 52 F. 3d 489, 492 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) . Sur i ne ar gues thathe as s oci at ed w i th a gr oup of us er s of cr ack butthatther e w as no or gani zat i on, or , i n the al t ernat i ve, thati f ther e w as an or gani zat i on he w as nota l eade roror gani zeri n the or gani zat i on. H ow ever , bas ed on11

t es t i m onys etfor th dur i ng the evi dent i aryhear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our ti dent i fi ed ni ne part i ci pant s i n the cr i m i nal act i vi ty , al l ni ne of w hom w er e r ecrui t ed bySur i ne and obt ai ned cr ack f

r om Sur i ne fordi s tr i but i on. I n addi t i on, the t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed that S u rin e m a d e a rra n g e m e n ts f o r c ra c k to b e d e liv e re d f ro m su p p liers in N e w Y o rk to h is re sid e n c e , tha t h e d ire c ted th e a c tiv iti e s o f o th e r p a rticip a n ts, th a t h e h a d a u th o rityto appr ove tr ades of i t ems forcr ack, and thathe att empt ed t o l i m i thi s expos ur e t o cr i m i nal liab ili tyb yu sin g “ g o p h e rs” to se ll d ru g s a n d p e rm itt in g o n lya sm a ll circ le o f in d iv id u a ls to d e a l d ire c tlyw ith h im . T h is te stim o n ye sta b lish e d th a t S u rin e p layed a lea d e rsh ip ro le i n the cons pi r acyt o pur chas e and di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne, and i tther efor e s uppor t s the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f a f o u r- le v e l a g g ra v a tin g ro le e n h a n c e m e n t. Fi nal l y , Sur i ne cha l l enges the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence the D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed . B ase d o n a total of fe n se lev el of

3 9 an d crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry of I I I , the D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed a G ui del i ne r ange of 324 m onths t o 405 m onths im p ri s o n m e n t. T h e C o u rt s e n te n c e d S u ri n e to a p e ri o d o f 3 6 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. Sur i ne ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bynots ent enci ng hi m atthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes i n cons i der at i on of hi s r emors e, the fa i l ur e of hi s cr i m i nal act i vi t i es t o advanc e h is s tan d a rd o f

liv in g , the im p a c t o f

h is a d d ictio n o n h is a c tiv iti e s, a n d h is e f f o rts u n d e rt a k e n in p ri s o n to re h a b ilita te h im s e lf. I f a s ent ence “fa l l s w i thi n the br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ”12

U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . “U l t i m at el y , ‘ [t ] he t ouchs t one of r eas onabl enes s i s w hetherthe r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ’ ” Tom ko , 562 F. 2d at 568 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ) . T h e r e c o r d s h o ws thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d i n fac tcons i derthe fa ct or s thatSur i ne bel i eves ent i t l e hi m t o a les se r se n ten c e . Im m e d iate lyb e f o re a n n o u n c in g th e se n ten c e , the C o u rt sp e c if ica lly c o n sid e re d S u rin e ’s r e m o rse a s w e ll as th e im p a c t o f c o n tin u e d su b sta n c e a b u se u p o n h is a c tiv iti e s, h is f

a ilu re to g e n e ra te s u b sta n tial in c o m e f ro m d ru g tra f

f ick in g , an d h is p a rt ic ip a tio n in s u b s ta n c e a b u s e c o u n s e lin g p ro g ra m s f o llo w in g h is c o n f

in e m e n t. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thata 360- m onth per i od of conf i nementw as n o n e th e le s s n e c e s s a ry, a n d w e f in d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n to b e re a s o n a b le . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved, the cons pi r acyl as t ed foratl eas ttw enty - one m onths w hi l e Sur i ne w as the l eade r , and atl eas t100 t o 200 i ndi vi dual s pur chas ed cr ack c o c a in e d u ri n g th a t tim e . T h e c o n s p ir a c yin c lu d e d th e tr a d in g o f f ir e a rm s f o r c ra c k . Sur i ne w as r es pons i bl e forthe drug addi ct i on of s ever al of hi s ow n chi l dr en, and af t er theydevel oped addi ct i ons , Sur i ne us ed them t o part i ci pat e i n the cons pi r acy . T he D i s tr i ct C our tal s o r evi ew ed Sur i ne’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , not i ng thatSur i ne’ s di s r egar d of the l aw began w hen he w as 18, cont i nued t o the dayof hi s arr es t , and i ncl udes ni ne pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i ons thatw er e noti ncl uded i n cal cul at i ng Sur i ne’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof th re e . F in a lly , the C o u rt n o ted o n e p a rticu lar p rio r c rim e : a c o n v ictio n o f in d e c e n t as sa u lt13

and corrupt i on of the mora l s of a mi norw her e the vi ct i m w as Sur i ne’ s daught er . T he D i s tr i ctC our tthought ful l ycons i der ed the evi dence befor e i tand dec i ded thata s ent ence in th e m id d le o f

th e G u id e lin e ra n g e w a s a p p ro p ria te b a se d o n its w e ig h in g o f m u lti p le fac t or s . I tconcl uded thata s ent ence of 360 m onths i m pr i s onm entw as j us t i fi ed bythe ser i ou sness of t he o ffen se, w ou l d p rom ote r espectfor the law , w ou l d p rovi de just p u n ishm en t and d eterren ce , an d w o u ld p rotec t th e p u b li c. W e f ind the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n to b e re a s o n a b le , a n d w e w ill th e re f o re a f f ir m th e s e n te n c e . III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in a ll res pects .