H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, Seni or J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our t for t he East er n D i s t ri ct of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 2930

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GE RA L D GR E GG, 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 for t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 3- 07- cr - 00333- 001 ) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e Edw i n M . K os i k

Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2010 B efore: S L O V ITE R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui t Judg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ct J udge * ( Fi l ed : A pr i l 21, 2010) OP I NI ON

______2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . I. A ppel l ant G er al d G r egg ( “G r egg”) pl ed gui l t yt o pos s es s i on of her oi n w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . O n appea l , G r egg ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t fai l ed t o cons i der adequa t el yhi s m ot i ons for a dow nw ar d depar t ur e and
v a r i a n c e a n d i mp o s e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. G reg g w as arrestedaf

ter m ak in g tw o sales o f

h ero into a g o v ern m en t w itn ess. Gregg p le d g uilt

y to coun t one of

a two -c ou nt indictm ent. According to the Pres ente nce Re port ( “ PSR” ) , Gr e gg wa s ac ar e e r offe nde r wi th at ot a l offe ns e l e ve l of 29 and a crim in al h isto ry

categ o ry o f V I, resu ltin g ina G u id elin es im p riso n m en t ran g e o f

1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s. A t sen ten cin g , G reg g m o v edf o r a d o w n w ardd ep arture an dv arian ce. Insup p o rt, G reg g arg u edth at h is crim es resu ltedf ro m h is dru g ad d ictio nan dtro ub ledch ildh o o d . Gr e gg a l s o poi nt e d t o afourt e e n- m onth pe r i od dur i ng whi c h he di d not c omm i t any cr im es , andtwenty-fou r hou rs of drug and alc oh ol educat ion that he c om plet ed. I n a ddi t i on, Gr e gg ar gue d that the Gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e wa s i na ppr opr i at e gi ve n the am ount of heroin he sold. The Co urt s ente nced Gregg to 1 51 m on ths i m pris on m ent andthre e years sup erv isedrelease. II. W e fi r s t r evi ew a s ent enci ng cour t ’ s deci s i on for s er i ous pr ocedur al er r or and t henT hi s cour t has j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . 3 r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of t he s ent ence for abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. Lopez
- R eye s , 5 8 9 F . 3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 1 III . Un der the Gu idel ines , a

se ntenci ng court m ay

depart do wn ward on e c ri m inal h isto ry categ o ry if th e d ef en d an t’s career o f

f en d er statu s “sub stan tially o v er-rep resen ts the s er iousness of

[h is ] cri m inalhist ory

or the l ikel ihoo d that [he] w il l c omm it other cr im es .” U.S.S.G. § 4 A1 .3(b)( 1). This c ou rt cann ot re view a s ente ncing cou rt ’s re fu sa l t o gr ant adownwar d de part

ur e “ unl e s s the r e c or d r e fl e c t s that the di s tr i c t

c ourt wa s not awar e of o r did no t und er st and its disc re ti on to m ake s uch a departure .” Un ited States v. Grie r , 585 F. 3d 138, 141 ( 3d Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng U n ited Sta tes v. P u ckett , 422 F. 3d 340, 3 4 4 -4 5 (6 thC ir. 2 0 0 5 )). Althou gh the Dis tr ic t Cou rt did n ot expres sl y

deny the m otion f

or do wn ward de part ur e whe n i t

i m pos e d aGui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , both Gr e gg and the Gove rnm e nt info rm ed the Dis tr ic t Cou rt of it s dis cr et ion to d epart. We have held that in li m it ed circu m stan ces, w e m ay

in f er th at a sen ten cin g co urt ex ercisedits d iscretio nn o t to d ep art. Uni te d States v . Lof

i nk, 564 F.3d23 2, 23 9 (3dCir. 20 09 ). Gregg argued that a depar ture w as w arran tedb asedo nh is h isto ry o f dru g ad d ictio n . Y et th e G u id elin es ex p licitly state that “[d] rug o r a lc oh ol depend ence or abuse i s not a r ea son f or a dow nw ar d d eparture .”4

U.S.S.G. § 5 H1 .4. Gre gg had f ive pri or felony

drug conv ic ti on s andtwenty-one cri m inal h isto ry p o in ts, an dh e co mm ittedth e in stan t o f f en se w h ile o np aro le. B asedo nth ese fact s, Gregg’s care er

of fend er st at us did n ot ov er

re pres ent his exte nsive c ri m inalhist ory and likel ihoo d o f reci divism . Thu s, we can inf er that the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

re ject ed Gregg’s m o tio nf o r d o w n w ardd ep arture. G regg’s ar gum e nt

i n s upport

of avar i anc e that

the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d by fa i l i ng to co n sid er th e sp ecif

ic § 3 5 5 3 (a) f

acto rs is w ith o u t m e rit. W e have m a de c l e ar that the sen ten cin g co urt n eedn o t m ak e ex p licit f in d in g s w ithresp ect to eachf acto r. Un ited States v . J

ac k s on , 4 6 7 F .3 d8 3 4 , 8 4 1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). In stead , th e reco rdm u st sim p ly d em o n strate th at all o f

th e f acto rs w ere tak enin to acco un t. Id
. Here , the Distri ct Co urt st at ed that

it “ha[d] to give consider at ion to the el em ents that ar e i n . . . [§ 35 53 (a )].” A p p . at 3 4 . T h e C o urt ref erredn o t o n ly

to th e “ch aracteristics o f th e d ef en d an t” b u t also to the “ se ri ou snes s of the of fense, ” the need fo r det er re nce, the “ kindof

se ntence s avai la ble, ” andthe defendant’s his tory of re ci divism . App . at 52-53 . W e c on cl ud e that the r ec ord sho ws that

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

adequate ly

consider ed and d enie d G re gg ’s m o tio nf o r a d o w n w ardv arian ce. I V. G r egg cha l l enges t he r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . U nder t he abus e of d isc re tio n sta n d a rd , se n ten c in g c o u rts h a v e w id e latitu d e in c ra f tin g a re a so n a b le
s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed St at es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 568 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( ci t i ngU

ni t ed St at es v. B ungar , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 )). H ere , the D ist ri ct C o u rt exp l i ci t l yrefer enced t he § 35 53 (a) fact ors “ t o s e e how the y i m pa c t i n de vi s i ng a reaso n ab le sen ten ce th at m ig h t b e d if f eren t th anth e [ G ] u id elin es.” A p p . at 5 2 . B ecau se the Di s tr i c t

Court “ c ons i de r e d the part i e s ’ ar gum e nt s and ha [d] ar e a s one d ba s i s for exer ci si ng [its ] legal deci si on m aking autho ri ty ,” Rita v. Un ited States , 551 U. S. 338, 356 ( 2007) , we c annot

hol d that i t s de c i s i onw a s u n re a s o n a b le .

V. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent of s ent ence ent er ed byt he D istric t C o u rt.

5