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 6-25-2009 

# U SA v . B ra cc io diet a 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 . 07-1258

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 . B r a c c iod ie t a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1137. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1137H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 os . 07- 1258, 07- 1365, 07- 1366

_________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . C H A R L E S B R A C C IO D IE T A ,

A ppel l ant

_________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C
. C r i m i nal N o. 1- 06- cr - 00716- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas ( D . C
. C r i m i nal N o. 1- 97- cr - 00033- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph H
. R odr i guez ( D . C
. C r i m i nal N o. 1- 97- cr - 00096- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph H
. R odr i guez

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

J une 24, 2009

____________________ B efor e: B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________2

R E S T A N I, J u d g e . C har l es B r acc i odi et a appeal s hi s s ent ence of 127 m onths of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed
a f t e ra p l e a o f

g u i l tyt o two c o u n t s o f

b a n k r o b b e ry i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a )
. On
a p p e a l, B ra c c io d ieta c la im s th a t: (1 ) h is s e n ten c e w a s u n re a so n a b le; (2 ) h e w a s e n tit led to a dow nw ar d departur e fordi m i ni s hed ment al capa ci tyand coope r at i on w i th author i t i es and h e w a s n o t a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r; (3 ) h e d id n o t re c e iv e e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l; (4 ) h is
r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al w as vi ol at ed; and ( 5) he s houl d have recei ved a c oncurr ents ent ence f o rv i o l a t i o n o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL BA CKGROUND I n Sept ember2005, B r acc i odi et a comm i t t ed tw o bank r obber i es . I n Sept ember2006, B rac ciod iet a p led g u il ty to tw o co u n ts o f ba n k rob b ery in violati o n o f 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 2 1 1 3 (a). A s partof the pl ea a gr eement , B r acc i odi et a s t i pul at ed thatcertai n G u ide l i nes pr ovi s i ons appl i ed, r es ul t i ng i n an adj us t ed off ens e l evel of 29 i f the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded he w as
a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r. T h e p a rties a lso re se rv e d th e rig h t to se e k a d e p a rtu re f ro m th e a p p lica b le gui del i nes underU . S. S. G
. §§ 5K 2. 0 ( G r ounds forD epartur e) and 5K 2. 13 ( D i m i ni s hed C a p a c ity). T he D i stri ct C ou rt con cl ud ed that B racci od i et a w as a career off end er w ith a b a se offe ns e l evel of 32, butappl i ed a thr ee- l evel dow nw ar d adj ustm en tforacc ept ance of
r es pons i bi l i ty , r es ul t i ng i n an offens e l evel of 29 and a G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange of 151 t o 188 m onths. B r acc i odi et a w as s ent ence d t o 127 m onths of i ncar cer at i on forthe bank3

robberi es, w hich w as tw enty -four m on ths below the G uidel i nes rang e . H e w as al so
se n ten c e d to a c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e o f 2 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t f o r v io latio n o f

h is
s upervi s ed r el eas e.

J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C
. § 1291 and 18 U . S. C
. § 3742. W e r evi ew the
s ent enci ng court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs for cl ear err or . U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 570 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c ). W e re v iew se n ten c in g d e ter m in a tio n s f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . G a ll
v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). DI S CUS S I ON I . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t i m p o s e d a r e a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . B r acc i odi et a ar gues hi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ct C our tfai l ed t o cons i derpr oper l ythe fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a), as the
s ent ence di d not acc ount for hi s di m i ni s hed m ent al capa ci ty or the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e. B r acc i odi et a al s o cl ai m s the s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e, as t he
courts houl d have onl yi m pos ed “a s ent ence s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat erthan neces s ary . ” 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e d is a g re e . A di s t r i ctc o u r tn e e d n o t“ d i s c u s s a n d ma k e f i n d i n g s a s t o e a c h o f

th e § 3 553( a) f a c t o rs if th e re c o rd m a k e s c le a r t h 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 .” U ni t e d St a t e s v . Se v i l l a , 5 4 1 F. 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. Her e, t he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the seve r i tyof the off ens e, the nee d t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm ent , t he4

n e e d f o r g e n e ra l an d sp e c if

ic d e ter re n c e , an d th e d e f e n d a n t’s p o ten tial f

o r re h a b ili tatio n in
w ei ghi ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s . T he D i s tr i ctC our t acknow l edged that the r obber i es w er e not sig n if ica n tlyv io len t, bu t n o ted th a t b e tw e e n a g e s tw e n ty -tw o a n d th irty -se v e n B ra c c io d ieta had s pentatm os tone y earoutof pr i s on “bec aus e of the qui cknes s of hi s r eci di vi s m . ” ( A pp. 2 1 6 a .) T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d B ra c c io d ieta ’s d im in ish e d m e n tal c a p a c ity , as it
w as p rov ided a p re-sen tenc e inv esti g ati o n rep o rtd etail ing B rac ciod iet a’s m en tal il lnes s , a l ett erfr om B r acc i odi et a pr ovi di ng hi s ow n acc ountof hi s i l l nes s , and a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on of B r acc i odi et a. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notfi nd a ca us al l i nk betw een Bra cci odi et a’ s m ent al condi t i on and hi s cr i m i nal conduct , and not ed that even w hi l e i m pr i s oned, B r acc i odi et a had t o be tr ans ferr ed s even t i m es fordi s ci pl i narypr obl ems. U nder thes e fact s , defe ndanthas not sh o w n thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence of 127 m onths , w hi ch w as 24 m onths bel ow t he b o tto m o f

th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w a s n o t g re a te r t h a n n e c e s s a ry. T he D i s tr i ctC our t cl ear l y cons i der ed the s t atut ory fac t or s and evi dence of pot ent i al
m i t i gat i on, and the s ent ence w as notunr eas onabl e s i m pl y beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed “t o gi ve mi t i gat i ng fac t or s the w ei ght[the] defe ndantcont ends theydes erve. ” U ni t ed St at es
v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 546 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. W e hol d that the D ist ri ct C o ur ti m pos ed a
re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e u p o n B ra c c io d ie ta . I I . B rac c i o di e t a w a s no t e nt i t l e d t o a do w nw a r d d e pa r t ur e ba s e d o n d i mi ni s hed m e n ta l c a p a c it y o r c o o p e r a ti o n w it h a u th o r it ie s . B racci od i et a con t end s that he w as enti t l ed t o a do w nw ard dep arture based o n h is d im in ish e d m e n tal c a p a c ityu n d e r U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1 3 , a n d h is s u b sta n tial a ss ista n c e toB ra c c io d ie ta a ls o c h a lle n g e s h is c a re e r o f f e n d e r s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. 1 B eca us e def

ens e couns el di d notcont es tthe appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder enhanc ementats ent enci ng, w e r evi ew onl yforpl ai n err or . See U ni t ed St at es v. C i anci , 154 F. 3d 106, 111 ( 3d C i r . 1998)
. B r acc i odi et a metal l of the cr i t er i a forcar eeroffe nder enhanc ement , as he w as overei ght een, the i ns t antoffe ns es w er e fe l onycr i m es of (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 au tho ri ti es u n d er U . S
. S
. G
. § 5 K 1
. 1
. W e lac k juri sd ict ion to re v ie w a D istri ct C o u rt ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n to g ra n t a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re , u n les s th e D istric t C o u rt m ista k e n ly bel i eved i thad no di s cr et i on t o denythe depa r ture. U ni t ed St at es v. V ar gas , 477 F. 3d 94, 1 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). H e re , the D istric t C o u rt re c o g n ize d its d isc re tio n a n d p ro p e rly
con si dered t he d ow nw a rd depa rture m oti on , i ncludi ng the p hy si ci an ex pertw i tness’ d ia g n o s is o f

B ra c c io d ie ta a s s u f

f ering fro m “b ipo la r d is o rd e r w ith re c u rr e n t m a n ic e p is o d e s .” (A p p . 4 9 a (e m p h a sis re m o v e d ).) T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t B ra c c io d ieta “ p ro b a b ly has bi pol ar d isord er” ( i d. at170a) , butdet erm i ned thatther e w as no caus al connec t i on betw een the di m i ni s hed ment al capa ci ty and t he cr i m e com m i t t ed. See U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 2. 13 ( r equi r i ng t hatthe “r educe d m ent al capa ci ty contr i but ed s ubs t ant i al l yt o the comm i s s i on of the off ens e”)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e m ay not r evi ew the deni al of the dow nw ar d departur e, and
r egar dl es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng thatthe r equi r ement s of U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1 3 h a d n o t b e e n m e t. Fur ther , beca us e the pr os ecut or ’ s r efus al t o fi l e a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance m ot i on w as b a se d o n B ra c c io d ieta ’s in c o n sis ten t co o p e r a tio n , n o t an u n c o n stitu tio n a l o r illeg iti m a te
m ot i ve, the D i s tr i ctC our tw as notr equi r ed t o depart dow nw ar d for s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance s ua sp o n te. S ee W ad e v . U n it ed S tat es, 50 4 U . S
. 1 8 1 , 1 8 5

– 8 6 (19 9 2 ). 1(
. . . cont i nued) 1 vi ol ence , and he ha d t w o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons forcr i m es of vi ol ence w i thi n the r el evants t atut oryper i od. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m B r acc i odi et a’ s car eeroffe nder d e s ig n a tio n . S e e U .S .S .G . § § 4 A 1 .2 (e ), 4 B 1 .1
. 6 I I I . B r a c c io d ie ta ’s c la im o f i n e ff e c ti v e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l fa ils . T hi s C our tgener al l ydoes notr evi ew i ne f f e c t i v e a s s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s on di r ect
a p p e a l, b e c a u s e c o lla te ra l r e v ie w “ a llo w s f o r a d e q u a te f

a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t o f

th e c l a i m .” U ni t ed St at es v. M or ena, 547 F. 3d 191, 198 ( 3d C i r . 2008)
. N onethel es s , h ere the r e i s no
r eas on t o del ay r evi ew . “[T] o es t abl i s h i neff ect i ve r epr es ent at i on, the def endantm us tpr ove b o th inc o m p eten ce an d p rejud ice.” K im m elm an v . M o rrison , 4 7 7 U . S
. 3 6 5 , 3 8 1 (19 8 6 ). B rac ciod iet a’s c la im is ba sed o n d ef en se c o u n sel’s de cisi o n n o t t o ca ll the d ef en d an t’ s psy chiatri c exp ertdu ri ng the sentenci ng heari ng ; ho w ever, w e w i l l n ot s econ d-guess
c o u n se l’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n s th a t ar e “ w e ll w ith in th e ra n g e o f p ro f e ss io n a llyre a so n a b le j udgm ent s . ” St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 699 ( 1984)
. T he expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony
w o u ld n o t li k e lyh a v e c re a ted a d if f e re n t o u tco m e , as th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t co n tes t h is d iag n o sis , the D istric t C o u rt a c c e p ted th e re p o rt’s c o n c lu sio n , a n d th e p sy c h iatric re p o rt d id
n o t un eq u ivo ca lly s ta te that B rac ciod iet a’s b ipo lar disord er c au sed h is un law fu l beh av ior. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yB ra c c io d ie ta ’s a p p e a l o n th e g ro u n d s o f in e f f e c tiv e c o u n s e l. I V . Brac c i odi e t a ca nnot m ake a cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 316 1 ( The Spe e dy T rial A ct). B racci od i e t a ’ s kn owi ng , un c on di t i on a l gu i l typl e a w a i ve d a l l no n- j ur i sdi ct i on al i ssues, inclu d ing h is Sp ee d yT ri al A ct claim
. S ee W ash ing ton v . S o b ina, 47 5 F . 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (3d C ir
.B r acc i odi et a does notdevel op the ar gum entthathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a 2 s peedytr i al w as vi ol at ed, and w e dec l i ne t o addr es s i t . U ni t ed St at es v. I r i zarry , 341 F. 3d 273, 305 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( fi ndi ng thatan appe l l ant ’ s br i ef mustcont ai n al l ar gum ent s and c ita tio n s to a u th o ri tie s in o rd e r t o p re s e rv e th e a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l)
. 7 2007)
. A ddi t i onal l y , the cont i nuance or der s s i gned bydefe ndant ’ s couns el t ol l ed the s peedy tr i al cl ock and onl y tw enty - tw o day s count ed agai ns t the seve nty al l ow ed under the Speedy T r i al A ct . 18 U
. S. C
. § 3161( h) ( 7) ( A )
. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l di s m i s s B r acc i odi et a’ s Speedy Tr i a l Ac tc l a i m. 2 V . T he s upervi s ed rel eas e j udge di d not abuse hi s di s cre t i on by orderi ng th at B racc i odi et a’ s s ent ence f or v iolat i on of

s upervi s ed rel eas e be s erve d c o ns e c ut i v e l y. T he s ent enci ng j udge forB r acc i odi et a’ s vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e had di s cr et ion t o i m pos e a s ent ence t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y , part i al l ycons ecut i vel y , or
c o n c u rr e n t l y , b a s e d u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e f a c t o r s s e t f

o r th i n § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 4 (a )– (b ). T h e se n ten c in g ju d g e im p o se d a se n ten c e o f 2 4 m o n th s, to ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly to the sen tenc e f

o r b an k rob b ery , fin d ing “a seriou s p rob lem ” w ith B rac ciod iet a’s
comm i s s i on of new bank r obber i es appr oxi m at el yone m onth fol l ow i ng r el eas e fr om pr i s on. Th e j u d g e a l s o n o t e d th a t b a n k r o b b e r i e s a r e p o t e n t i a l l y v i o l e n to f f e n s e s th a tc a u s e v i c t i ms to f e a r fo r th e ir sa f

e ty . It is cle a r fro m th e re c o rd th a t th e ju d g e w a s aw a r e o f a ll th e f a c ts
w hi ch r el at ed t o the s ent enci ng fac t or s , and thatthe j udge arr i ved ata r eas onabl e s ent ence . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m . CO NC L US I ON 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 ju d g m e n ts o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.