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 Third C ir c uit 12-14-2009 

# U SA v . K e n yatt a H e nry P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3214

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 . Ke n yatt a H e nry " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 107. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1071

B L D - 030 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- 3214

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KE NYAT T A DARNE L L HE NR Y, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00410) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ S u b m i t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e D i s m i s s a l D u e t o a n U n t i m e l y N ot i ce of

A ppeal and Pos s i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober29, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber14, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K e n y a tta D a rn e ll H e n rya p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h isH enryw as a ca r eeroffe nder , and the ca r eeroffe nders ent enci ng gui del i nes cal l ed for 1 an off ens e l evel of 32. B utthos e gui del i nes do notappl yunl es s the bas e off ens e l evel th e ye s t a b l i s h i s “ g r e a t e rth a n th e o f f e n s e l e v e l o th e rwi s e a p p l i c a b l e . ” U. S . S . C. § 4 B 1 . 1 (b). 2 m ot i on under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) t o m odi fyhi s s ent ence . B eca us e thi s appea l p rese n ts no su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm . S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 . 4 (20 0 8 ); 3 d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I n M a y2 0 0 7 , He n ryp l e a d e d g u i l tyt o 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 5 0 g r a ms orm or e of c ocai ne bas e and c ocai ne. See 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he pr e- s ent ence r eporti dent i fi ed H enry ’ s drug quant i tyas 410 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne and 22 gr ams of pow dercoca i ne. B eca us e the off ens e i nvol ved di ffe r entcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , the q u a n tit ies w e re c o n v e rte d to a m a riju a n a e q u iv a len t, w h ich in th is c a se w a s a p p ro x im a tely 8200 ki l ogr ams. See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 10. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ct C our tas s i gned a ba s e off ens e l evel of 34. See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) . T hatl evel w as 1 r educe d bythr ee poi nt s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . See U . S. S. G . §§ 3E 1. 1. W i th a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 31, and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , H enry ’ s gui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange w as 188 t o 235 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . I n a J udgm entent er ed on A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rts e n te n c e d H e n ry to 1 8 8 m o n th s o f im p ri s o n m e n t. T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on l at eradopt ed and made r etr oact i ve A m endment706, w hi ch “de cr eas e[d] bytw o l evel s the bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . H enryfi l ed a c ouns el ed mot i onT he t i m e forfi l i ng an appe al fr om a rul i ng on a § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on i s governed by 2 the pr ovi s i ons of Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( b) appl i cabl e t o cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . See U ni t ed S ta te s v . E s p in o s a -T a la m a n te s , 3 1 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o lle c tin g c a s e s ). T hus , H enryhad unt i l M onday , J ul y13, 2009, t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l . See Fed. R . A pp. 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 26( a) ( 3) . H enryfi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l on J ul y20, 2009, cl ai m i ng thathe di d notr ece i ve a c opyof the or derunt i l J ul y16, 2009. W e nee d notdet erm i ne w hether thes e ci r cumst ance s ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. I n the w ake of B ow l es v. R us s el l , 551 U . S. 205 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , e v e ryCo u r to f

Ap p e a l s t o h a v e a d d r e s s e d th e i s s u e h a s c o n c l u d e d th a tth e t i me l i m i t at i on cont ai ned i n R ul e 4( b) , unl i ke thatcont ai ned i n R ul e 4( a) , i s notj ur i s di ct i onal b u t is in s te a d a c la im s p ro c e s s in g ru le w h o s e a p p lic a tio n c a n b e f o rf e ite d . S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 233- 34 ( 2d C i r . 2008) . I n thi s cas e, the G overnm ent has nots oughtt o enfor ce the t i m e l i m i t at i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r eac h the mer i t s of H e n ry ’s a p p e a l. 3 u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ), t o m o d if yh is s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f th a t a m e n d m e n t. T he G overnm entfi l ed a br i ef i n oppos i t i on. B yor derent er ed J ul y1, 2009, the D i s tr i ct C ou rtden i ed the m oti on . H enryapp eal s. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2 i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes de novo and i t s ul t i m at e di s pos i t i on of a § 3582( c) ( 2) m o ti o n fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . M ateo , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 (3d C ir . 2009) . W e per cei ve no abus e of di s cr et i on her e. Sect i on § 3582( c) ( 2) , the pr ovi s i on perm i t t i ng a di s tr i ctcourtt o r educe a t erm of im p ri so n m en t fo ll o w ing a c h an g e in th e S en tenc ing G u idelines , p rov ides that the c o u rt m u st “co n side r[] the fa ctors se t fo rth in se cti o n 3 5 5 3 (a) to the ex tent that theyare ap p li ca b le. ” S ee also U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 0 cm t. n . 1 (B )(i ) (“C o n sist en t w ith § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2), th e c o u rts h a ll c o n s id e r t h e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) i n d e te rm in in g . . . w hethera reducti on i n the defen dan t ’s t erm of im pri sonm ent i s w arr anted . . . . ). T ho se4

fac t or s i ncl ude, i nt eral i a, “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand ch ara cterist ics o f th e d ef en d an t. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1). I n this case , the D istri ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 lo w e re d H e n ry ’s b a se o f f e n se lev e l b ytw o , fr o m 3 4 to 32. See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 10( D ) . W i th thr ee poi nt s s ubtr act ed for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , H enry ’ s amended g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s o f im p riso n m e n t. T h e re f

o re , H e n ryw a s e lig ib le f o r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n o f u p to 3 7 m o n th s . T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on nott o r educe H enry ’ s s ent ence , how ever . A ft eracknow l edgi ng thati tw as r equi r ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe § 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e, ” the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed th a t H e n ry ’s “ d ru g d e a lin g w a s s o e x ten siv e th a t h is b a se o f f e n se lev e l w a s d riv e n b yh is d ru g q u a n tityu n d e r se c tio n 2 D 1 .1 (c ), w h ile f o r m o st c a re e r o f

f e n d e rs th e d ru g -ta b le offe ns e l evel i s trum ped bythe off ens e l evel i n s ect i on 4B 1. 1( b) . G i ven the quant i tyof d ru g s D e f

e n d a n t d istrib u ted , n o re d u c tio n in se n ten c e is a p p ro p ria te.” In m a k in g its d e ter m in a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt re f e rre d to th e a rg u m e n ts m a d e b yth e G o v e rn m e n t, w hi ch emphas i zed thatH enry ’ s offe ns e i nvol ved s ever al epi s odes of l ar ge- s cal e drug di s tr i but i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. E gger s dor f, 126 F. 3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 1997) (h o ld in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt a d e q u a telyc o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs b yb rie f

ly s t at i ng thati thad r evi ew ed the governm ent ’ s br i ef, w hi ch s etoutthe pert i nentfac t or s and enumer at ed fa ct s r el evantt o thos e fa ct or s ) . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e bel i eve thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts etforth s uffi ci entr eas ons fori t s deci s i on t o denyH enry ’ s § 3582( c) ( 2)

m ot i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. D orr ough, 84 F. 3d 1309, 1311 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( s t at i ng that w h en ad jud icati n g a § 3 5 8 2 (c) m o ti o n “[ t] h ere is no req u ir em en t th at th e d istri ct co u rt m ake s peci fi c fi ndi ngs r egar di ng eac h of the [§ 3553( a) ] fac t or s as l ong as i ts t at es the r eas ons fori t s act i ons . ”) ; cf. U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( “N orm us ta courtdi s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs if th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th e c o u rt to o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in s e n te n c in g .” ). B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n , w e w ill su m m a rily a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

5