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 3-26-2009 

# U SA v . O sc ar C ruz -B arrie nt o 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 . 08-2117

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 . O s car C r uz -B arr ie nt o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1681. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/16811 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. 08- 2117

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . O SCA R C RU Z- BA RR I EN TO S, A ppel l ant

____________ 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 . C . C r i m . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00997- 0001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan

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

M ar ch 2, 2009 B efore: B A R R Y , W E IS and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2009)

____________ OP I NI ON

W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

D efe ndantw as convi ct ed of i l l egal l yr e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es aft er2

havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand havi ng been de por t ed i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) , ( b) ( 2) . H e w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of 41- m onths i m pr i s onm ent , att he b o tto m o f

th e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, defe ndantr eques t ed a va r i ance bas ed i n par ton t h e s e v e r i t yo f

c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e P a s s a i c Co u n t yj a i l wh e r e h e wa s c o n f i n e d f o rs o me m o n th s w h ile a w a iti n g se n ten c in g . In a d d iti o n , h e re lied o n h is f a m ilyties a n d h is e x e m p l a r y c o n d u c ts i n c e r e - e n t e r i n g th e c o u n t r y.

O n appea l , defe ndantcont ends thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al e rr o rs in s e n te n c in g a n d im p o s e d a s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e .

W e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterrpr ocedur al l y . A l t hough t he C o u rt u se d th e w o rd “ p o licy ” w h e n d isc u ss in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s in c a rc e ra tio n a t th e P a ss a ic C ount yj ai l , w e ar e convi nced thatthe C our tadequa t el ycons i der ed al l of the fa ct or s l i s t ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) befor e i m pos i ng the s ent ence , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 458 F . 3 d 3 1 2 , 3 2 0 - 2 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ [ u ] n l e s s a j u d g e e m p l o ys a p e r s o n a l s e n t e n c i n g p o l i c y .

. . r athert han i ndi vi dual l ycons i der i ng the fa ct s of ea ch ca s e, a j udge maybe l es s l eni ent t ow ar ds cert ai n t ypes of cr i m es ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , and exe r ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on i n d eny i ng a vari ance. O ur r eview of the recor d sat i sfi es us that the C ou rtal so s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ned i t s s ent enci ng deci s i on, i ncl udi ng i t s r eas ons fordeny i ng defe ndant the re q u ested v arian ce . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . L ev inso n , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 -97 (3d C ir . 2008) ( di s t r i ctcour t s m us tcons i deral l nonfr i vol ous ar gum ent s of the def endantand3

g o v e rn m e n t a n d s u f

f ic ie n tly e x p la in th e s e n te n c in g d e c is io n ). D efe ndantpr es ent s a s ym pathet i c ca s e, butw e ar e notfr ee t o r e- s ent ence hi m . T he G ui del i nes r ange, al t hough notconcl us i ve, r epr es ent s a cons i der ed vi ew of the a p p ro p ria te p u n ish m e n t f o r th e v io latio n o f

th e law . S e e R ita v . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 (2 0 0 7 ) ( th e G u id e lin e s re f le c t th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g “ C o m m is s io n ’s . .

. j udgm entas t o w hati s an appr opr i at e s ent ence fora gi ven off ender ”) . U nderour defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e do notconcl ude thata 41- m ont h t erm of i m pr i s onm ent is sub stan ti v elyu n rea so n ab le. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G ree n idg e, 49 5 F . 3 d 8 5 , 1 0 2 (3d C ir . 2007) ( r evi ew fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s “i s t o a gr eatdegr ee de fer ent i al ”) ( i nt ernal p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e J u d g m e n t o f

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