2003 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 7-16-2003 

# U S A v . P ineir o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1958

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . P ineir o " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 365. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/365NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No: 02-1958

_____________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. LUI S PI NEI RO, Appellant

App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal Acti on No. 00-cr- 00257-1) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Will iam H. Yohn
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on March 3, 2003 Bef or e: ROTH, BARRY and FU EN TE S, Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led : J une 30, 2003 )2 O P I N I O N
RO TH , Circuit

Judge: On Sep temb er 28 , 2001 , Luis P ineiro w as fo und guilty by a jury of cons piracy to di st ri bute mo re th an fi ve ki lo gr ams of co ca in e i n vi ol atio n of

21 U .S .C . § 846 . O n February7, 2002, Pi neiro was se ntenced t o 211 months impri sonment. J udgment was entere d on Feb ruary 11 , 2002 . On M arch 2 6, 200 2, Pine iro filed his Pe tition to F ile Appeal Out of Time along wit h a Notice of Appeal. The Distri ct Court gr anted both the petit ion and the notice and fil ed Pineiro’s Notic e of Appeal as of March 26, 2002. The Government chall enges thi s appeal on t he ground that

it was untimelyand theref ore we lack j urisdi ction. We disagree. Our review of the relevant dates, pursuant to FederalRule of Appellate Procedure 4( b)(1)( A), convince s us that the appealwas time ly filed
. Pineiro raises tw o issues in his ap peal. First, he contend s that the District Co urt erred i n denyi ng his re quest t o trans fer venue. Venue was proper in t he Eastern Distri ct of Pennsy lvania . Neverthe less, Pineir o clai ms that t he case shoul d have been tr ansferr ed to the Sout

hern District

of Flori da because that is where his witnesses r eside. Location of witnesse s is one f

actor t hat a di stri ct court

can conside r when reviewing a request for tran sfe r ofven ue. See Platt v. Minnesot

a Mining & Manufacturing Co. , 376 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1964). In thi s case, however, the re were no othe r fact ors favoring tr ansfer and3

indeed seve ral, includi ng the loc ation of the most of t

he conspir atori al activit y and t he location of the government’s witness, favored hol ding the t rialin the Eas tern Dis tri ct of Pennsyl vania. We conclude that the Dist rict Court did not

abuse it s discretion i n denyi ng the r equ est f or c han ge o f ve nue . Pineir o also contends that he was ill egall y se ntenced when the Dis tri ct Court f ound by a pr eponderance of t he evidence t

hat he was res ponsibl e for 50 to 150 ki lograms of cocaine. He argues that , purs uant to Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 ( 2000), t he drug quanti ty attributabl e to him shoul d have been deci ded by t he jury . The jury di d, however, fi nd that Pi neiro had di stributed more that fi ve kilogr ams of cocaine i n violat ion of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to § 841(b)(1) (A)(ii ), t he maximum statutory penalty for this offense is life in pri son. Si nce Pinei ro’s s entence of 211 months impri sonment was less t hat th e sta tuto ry ma xim um , Apprendi is no t app licab le. See, e. g., Unit ed State s v. Wil li ams , 235 F.3 d 85 8, 86 2-6 4 (3 d C ir. 20 00) , cert. denied , 122 S.C t. 49 (20 01)
. Fo r the abo ve r eas ons , we wil l aff irm t he ju dgm ent o f the Dis trict C our t.4

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le the foregoing Opinion.
By the C ourt, /s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge