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 7-13-2009 

# U SA v . J o e M e ns ah 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 . 08-2921

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 . J oe M e n s ah" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1024. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1024H onor abl e N or a B arr yFi s cher , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, 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 o. 08- 2921 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OE M E NS AH, A K A K w abena M ens ah,

J OE M E NS AH, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 A ct i on N o. 3- 02- cr - 00455- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL . C ooper Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay13, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O and R O T H C i r cui tJ udges and FI SC H E R , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y13, 2009)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udgeT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 u n d er 2 8 U . S . C § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). “W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 5 4 1 F . 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 I n M ar ch 2003, J oe M ens ah w as convi ct ed i n the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey o f c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n f i v e k i l o g r a ms of coc ai ne ( i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 and 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( i i ) ) and cons pi r acyt o exportm or e than fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne ( i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 953 and 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b) (1) (B )) . In O ct ob er 2003 , he w as sent enced t o 2 40 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent . W e af

fi r m ed hi s convi ct i on on appea l , butvaca t ed hi s s ent ence and r emanded forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and B lakel y v. W as hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. O

ppong , 165 F. A pp’ x. 15 5 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). In M ay20 08 , M ensah w as agai n sentenced to 24 0 m on ths’ i mp r i s o n me n t . He n o w a p p e a l s th a ts e n t e n c e , a n d we a f f i r m. 1 W e re q u ir e a d is tr ic t c o u rt to f o llo w a th re e -s te p s e n te n c in g p ro c e d u re . U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . Fi r s t , the C our tm us tcal cul at e the defe ndant ’ s G ui del i nes s ent ence . N ext , i tm us tform al l yrul e on both part i es ’ m ot i ons and ind icate w h ethe r a d ep arture f rom the G u idelines is be ing g ran ted. F inally , the C o u rt m u st e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n b yc o n sid e rin g th e re lev a n t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in im p o sing it s sen tenc e. A d istri ct co u rt ’s co n side rati o n o f th e re leva n t § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors m us tbe “r at i onal and meani ngful . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir .Sect i on 3553( a) ( 1) i ns truct s a courtt o cons i der“the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the 2 offe ns e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant ” i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1). 3 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ). T h at i s, “[ m ]erelyrec it ing the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, say ing that co u n sel’s a rg u m e n ts h a v e b e e n c o n sid e re d , an d th e n d e c lar in g a se n ten c e , are in su f f icie n t to w i ths t and . . . r eas onabl enes s r evi ew . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 467 F. 3d 834, 842 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M e n sa h ’s s o le a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to g iv e m e a n in g f

u l co n sid e ra tio n to w hetherhe w arr ant ed a l ow ers ent ence under§ 3553( a) bas ed on hi s “hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics .” M o re sp e c if ica lly , h e a rg u e s th a t th e C o u rt f a iled to a d d re ss a d e q u a tely 2 hi s fami l yci r cumst ance s , hi s l ack of pr i orconvi ct i ons , and hi s pos t convi ct i on re h a b ili tativ e c o n d u c t. W e d isa g re e . T h e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e x ten siv e ly a d d re ss e d e a c h o f

th e p o ten tiallym iti g a tin g f a c to rs r a ise d b yM e n sa h . It n o ted th a t h is f a m ilysitu a tio n (th re e sc h o o l-a g e d c h ild re n b e in g ra ise d b yh is w if e ), w h ile p o ig n a n t, w as “notatal l unus ual ” and w as “the comm on pl i ghtof the fa m i l i es of thos e convi ct ed of fede r al cr i m es , ” found thathi s l ack of pr i orconvi ct i ons w as ful l yacc ount ed fori n the cal cul at i on of hi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange, and des cr i bed M ens ah’ s pos t convi ct i on eff or t s atr ehabi l i t at i on ( i n part i cul ar , hi s eff or tt o over come hi s al cohol depende ncy ) as “l audabl e and t o be enc our aged, ” butnot“out s i de of the hea r t l and of the types ofre s p o n s ib le b e h a v io r t h a t w e w o u ld h o p e to s e e .”

M ens ah cont ends , how ever , thatthi s w as i ns uffi ci ent , as the C our taddr es s ed the f a c to rs h e ra ise d in th e c o n tex t o f h is m o tio n f

o r a d e p a rtu re f

ro m th e G u id e lin e s, n o t h is r eques tfora var i ance under§ 3553( a) . W e ar e notper s uaded thatthi s di s t i nct i on m akes anydi ffe r ence i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s . A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, M ens ah ac know l edged thathe w as r eques t i ng a depa r tur e and a var i ance on exac t l ythe s ame gr ounds . T he D istri ct C o u rtind icated ex p li cit lythat itw as g o ing to co n side r th e m it igating fa ctors r ai s ed byM ens ah “i n both l i ght s ” ( i . e. , a s g ro u n d s f o r e ith e r a d e p a rt u re o r a v a ri a n c e ). T hus , the C our t ’ s l at ers t at ementthat , i n i m pos i ng the 240 mont hs ’ s ent ence , i thad cons i der ed the “hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant , ” w as s uffi ci ent , i n l i ghtof th a t p rio r d isc u ss io n , to s a tisf yth e C o u rt’s o b lig a tio n to g iv e m e a n in g f u l co n sid e ra tio n to th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs r a ise d b yth e d e f

e n d a n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a f

f irm th e se n ten c e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.