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 2-9-2009 

# U SA v . Ron ald George 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 . 08-2241

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 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 . Ron ald Ge org e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1899. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1899NOT 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- 2241

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO NA LD G EOR GE, 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 f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 335) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone

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

February2, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges ,

( Fi l ed: February9, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . W e ar e as ked t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed a pr ocedur al err or dur i ng s ent enci ng, ei therbyfai l i ng t o cons i ders om e of the s ent enci ng fac t or s under18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), o r b yf a ili n g to a c k n o w led g e a n d re sp o n d to tw o o f D e f e n d a n t R o n a ld2

G eor ge’ s s ent enci ng ar gum ent s . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng s t at ementw as s uffi ci ent , w e s ee no pr ocedur al err orand w i l l aff i r m G eor ge’ s s ent ence . I . B ackgr ound G e o rg e w a s in d icte d o n , an d e v e n tu a llyp led g u iltyto , 2 0 c o u n ts o f m a il fra u d , in viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 34 1. T hroug h a b usi ness cal l ed C anal Fi nan ci al E nterpri ses, G eor ge t ol d cl i ent s thathe w as i nves t i ng thei rm oneyi n s afe fi nanci al i ns trum ent s , s uch as annui t i es , w hen i n fac the us ed and l os tthei rm oneyi n m uch r i s ki er“daytr adi ng” i nves t m ent s . T o fur therhi s s cheme, G eor ge us ed the U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce t o s end hi s cl i ent s fal s i fi ed annui tys t at ement s and otherl ett er s r egar di ng the fa br i cat ed in v e s tm e n ts . F o ll o w ing G eo rge ’s gu il typ lea, th e P rese n tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt(“P S R ”), w h ich u sed the 2 0 0 7 v ersion o f th e U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (“G u idelines ”), s e t G e o rg e ’s to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l a t 2 0 a n d c la s s if ie d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry a s C a te g o ry I. A ccordi ng l y , the G uidel i nes sent ence f or G eorge’s convict i on s i ncluded 33 t o 4 1 m on ths’ im p ri s o n m e n t. G eo rge d id n o t object t o the P S R ’s G u idelines ca lculati o n . H e d id, ho w ev er, pr es entm i t i gat i ng ar gum ent s thr ough a pos i t i on paper , a s ent enci ng m emora ndum , and a p e rso n a l lette r to th e C o u rt. G e o rg e re late d th a t h e b e g a n h is d a ytra d in g f o llo w in g h is d o c t o r ’ s d e v a s t a t i n g p r o g n o s i s th a tp r o s t a t e c a n c e rwo u l d l i k e l yt a k e h i s l i f e wi th i n twoG e o rg e a ls o in f o rm e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t h is c a n c e r w e n t in to re m is s io n in 2 0 0 1 . 1 A 10- t o- 16- m onth s ent ence w oul d have be en a “ Z one C ” s ent ence , w hi ch w oul d have 2 m a d e G e o rg e e lig ib le to se rv e n o m o re th a n h a lf o f h is s e n ten c e th ro u g h c o m m u n ity confi nementorhom e det ent i on. U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 5C 1. 1( d) ( 2) (20 0 7 ). 3 y e a rs. G e o rg e a rg u e d th a t a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e to a se n ten c e in th e 1 0 -to -1 6 -m o n th

1 r ange w oul d be appr opr i at e bec aus e of hi s need t o car e forhi s fami l y , i ncl udi ng hi s w i fe, w ho has m ul t i pl e s cl er os i s , hi s gr ands ons , and hi s el der l ym other . H e al s o as ked the 2 C our tt o t ake i nt o acc ounthi s age ( G eor ge w as 69 atthe t i m e of s ent enci ng) , hi s l i fe- l ong an d stead yh ist o ryo f law fu l em p loym en t, an d h is fo u r y ea rs of m il it aryserv ice. I n m aki ng hi s s ent enci ng ar gum ent s , G eor ge emphas i zed the nee d forthe courtt o cons i der “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the d e f e n d a n t.” (A p p . 4 6 (q u o tin g § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 )).) A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , G e o rg e b rie f ly h ig h lig h ted h is c a re o f

h is w if e a n d m o th e r, h is a g e , an d a n u m b e r o f lette rs w ritten o n h is b e h a lf , b u t e le c te d to m a k e n o f u rt h e r r e m a rk s . A fter h ea ri n g fro m the p rose cu tor an d tw o o f G eo rge ’s victi m s, the D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d G eor ge t o 34 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed bya thr ee- y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e foreac h of the 20 count s , t o be s erved conc urr ent l y , and or der ed that h e p a yre s titu tio n to th e v ic tim s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 7 1 2 ,5 6 4 .9 2 . G eor ge t i m el yappea l ed. H e ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orbyfai l i ng t o m eani ngful l ycons i dertw o of hi s ar gum ent s fora dow nw ar d var i ance ,T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r th a d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We 3 have j ur i s di ct i on overG eor ge’ s appea l fol l ow i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 n a me l y , th e h e a l th c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s wi f e a n d mo th e ra n d h i s b e l i e f th a th e h a d l i t t l e t i me to liv e . I I . D i s cus s i on 3 W e re v ie w a c ri m in a l d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , - - - U . S. - - - , 128 S. C t . 586, 594 ( 2007) . O urr evi ew begi ns bydet erm i ni ng w hether the D i s tr i ctC our tm ade a ny“s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or s , ” s uch as “fa i l i ng t o cons i der the § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Id . at597. I f nec es s ary , w e then r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

th e s e n te n c e . U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). G eor ge does notcont end thathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. T hus , ourfocus i s on w hetherthe D i stri ctC ou rtcom m i t t ed an ysi gn i fi cant pr oced ural err ors. R el y i ng on ourdeci s i on i n U nited S tates v. A usbu rn , 5 0 2 F . 3 d 3 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), G eor ge ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed a pa t ent l yunr eas onabl e pr ocedur al err or b yfa il ing to ad d ress tw o o f h is sen tenc ing arg u m en ts. H e c o n tend s tha t a distr ictco u rt m u s t “ ‘a c k n o w le d g e a n d re s p o n d to ’” a n yn o n -f ri v o lo u s re q u e s t f

o r a v a ri a n c e . ( A ppel l ant ’ s O peni ng B r i ef a t16 ( quot i ng A usbu rn , 5 0 2 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 ).) O urdeci s i on i n A usbu rn , how ever , i s unhel pful t o G eor ge. A us burn r ece i ved a s ent ence thatw as m or e than doubl e the t op end of the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. 502 F .3 d a t 3 1 5 . G e o rg e ’s s e n te n c e , in c o n tr a s t, w a s n e a r t h e lo w e n d o f th e a d v is o ry ra n g e .5

W hen a di s tr i ctcourti m pos es s uch a s ent ence , w e nee d noti ns i s t“upon a f ul l opi ni on. ” R ita v. U ni t ed Stat es , 551 U . S. 338, 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 ( 2007) . I ns t ead, “[t ] he s ent enci ng j udge s houl d s etfor th enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i on m aki ng author i ty . ” I d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. O l

f ano , 503 F. 3d 240, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng R i ta f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p re su m p tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss is p e rm is s ib le f

o r s e n te n c e s w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e ). A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt’s e x p lan a tio n w a s b rie f , the re c o rd h e re a d e q u a tely i ndi cat es thatthe C our tcons i der ed ea ch ar gum entG eor ge made, as w el l as the s ect i on 3553( a) fac t or s . A m ong otherthi ngs , the C our taddr es s ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off

ens e, s t at i ng that“w hi l e I under s t and the mi t i gat i on thatthe def ens e pr es ent s , on the others i de, y ou know , w hatthe def endantdi d i n thi s cas e has s hatt er ed the fi nanci al sta b ili tyo f

so m e v e ryf

in e p e o p le, th e se p e o p le th a t sh o u ld b e e n ter in g th e sta g e o f th e ir l i fe w her e theys houl d have s ecur i ty . ” ( A pp. 58- 59. ) A s t o G eor ge’ s hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs , the C our ts ai d: “H i s l i fe’ s notover . A nd he’ s not– he’ s pr obabl yi n t he th ird q u a rte r. B u t w h e n h e c o m e s o u t an d d o e s h is d e b t, he c a n g o o n w ith h is lif e . B u t, i t ’ s t i m e t o payforw hathe has done t o other s . ” ( A pp. 59. ) T hats t at ements peaks p arti all yto the tw o arg u m en ts G eo rge p resse s o n ap p ea l. F inally , the C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t itc o n sid e re d th e o th e r se c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, re m a rk in g th a t th is “ is nota part i cul ar l yhar d cas e, ” ( A pp. 58) , thatG eor ge must“make as m uch r es t i tut i on as he6

can, ” ( A pp. 59) , and thatthe s ent ence r efl ect ed “the nee d t o s at i s fyal l of the i m por t ant and tr adi t i onal goal s of s ent enci ng, w hi ch i ncl ude puni s hm ent , pr ot ect i on of other s fr om p o te n tia l h a rm , a s w e ll a s th e n e e d to re h a b ilita te th e d e f e n d a n t.” (A p p . 6 3 .) In re v iew in g th is s e n ten c e , w h ich w a s w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w e d e c lin e to fur therpar s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement s . I ti s enough t o obs erve, as w e have , thatt he C o u rt ’s co m m en ts an d ruli n g s su ff ici en tl yad d resse d the p arti cu lar section 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors t o w hi ch G eor ge’ s ar gum ent s w er e di r ect ed. I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof s ent ence .