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 3-4-2009 

# U SA v . S edric M orri s 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 . 08-1365

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 author i 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 . S e dr ic M orr i s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1782. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1782T he H onor abl e Thom as S. E l l i s I I I , Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni 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- 1365

_________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. SED RI C A . M ORRI S,

A ppel l ant

________________ A ppeal fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D istric t o f

W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C ri m i nal N o. 00 -cr -0000 1J) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

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

J anuary8, 2009

________________ B efor e: C H A G A R E S, H A R D I M A N C i r cui tJ udges , and EL L I S, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 4, 2009)

_______________ OP I NI ON

_______________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. I n t hi s appea l , Sedr i c M or r i s chal l enges hi s s ent ence of 51 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent forvi ol at i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e as unr eas onabl e. W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s s ent ence . I . T he fa ct s of the under l y i ng offe ns e ar e w el l - know n t o t he part i es and w e w i l l not r epea tt hem her e. T he s ent ence of 51 m onths i s w i t hi n t he r ange c al cul at ed underthe U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and thatcal cul at i on i s notchal l enged. M orr i s al s o conce des t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed ea ch of the fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , and t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence atthe l ow es tend of the r ange c al cul at ed under t he G ui del i nes . N evert hel es s , M or r i s ar gues thathi s 51- m ont h s ent ence w as “gr eat ert han n e c e s s a ry to b e c o n s id e re d re a s o n a b le w ith re g a rd to th e [ S e c tio n ] 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs ,” beca us e the C our tor der ed thatM or r i s s erve thi s s ent ence cons ecut i ve t o, r atherthan co n cu rren tl yw ith , the th ree - t o six-y ea r sen tenc e im p o sed b ya P en n sy lvan ia st ate c o u rt f o r p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . A p p e lla n t B r. a t 1 0 . II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew both t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence and i t s i m pos i t i on of a c oncurr entorcons ecut i ve s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on. G al l v.3

U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sw an, 275 F. 3d 272, 275 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In re v iew ing M o rri s’s sen tenc e, w e m u st fir st de term ine th at th e D istri ct C o u rt “comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , ” s uch as “fa i l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s . . . orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence . . . . ” G al l , 128 S. C t . at 597; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sm al l ey , 517 F. 3d 208, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I f the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e then r evi ew the s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, “t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s . ” G al l , 128 S. C t . at197; s ee Smal l ey , 317 F. 3d at214. I n r evi ew i ng t he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , w e “do nots eek t o s econd gues s , ” butw e neve r t hel es s m us tas s ur e our s el ves thatthe di s t r i ctcour thas gi ven us an “expl anat i on. . . s uffi ci entforus t o s ee thatthe part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e have been gi ven meani ngful cons i der at i on w i t hi n t he par amet er s of § 3553( a) , ” U ni t ed St at es v. L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d 190, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a n “ind ividu ali ze d asse ssm en t bas ed o n the f ac ts prese n ted,” G all , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 59 7 . In addi t i on, “[t ] he s ent enci ng j udge s houl d s etfor t h enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtt hat h e h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u me n t s a n d h a s a r e a s o n e d b a s i s f o re x e r c i s i n g h i s o wn lega l dec isi o n m ak ing au tho ri ty . ” R it a v . U n it ed S tat es, 12 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 (20 0 7 ).4 III . W e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s b o th p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e ly re a so n a b le. T h e C o u rt a d e q u a telya d d re ss e d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, a n d M o rris g e n e ra lly d o es n o t con testthis co n clus ion . M o rri s fu rth er c o n ce d es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt cons i der ed the advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange of 51- 63 m ont hs and ul t i m at el yi m pos ed a s e n te n c e a t th e b o tto m o f th a t r a n g e . M o rris’ s m a in o b

jec tio n is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it s ent ence d M or r i s fort he vi ol at i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm t o a cons ecut i ve, r ather th a n c o n c u rr e n t, te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t w ith h is s ta te c o u rt s e n te n c e . U n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3584( a) and ( b) , t he C our thas di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe s ent ence s s houl d run c o n se c u tiv e to , o r c o n c u rre n tlyw ith , an yo th e r te rm o f im p riso n m e n t im p o se d , an d sh o u ld m ake i t s deci s i on i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s . See U ni t ed St at es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 8 4 7 , 8 5 1 -52 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . V alasq u ez , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on, i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s l i s t ed i n § 3 5 5 3 (a), to h av e the sen tenc es ru n co n sec u ti v ely . Ind ee d , the C o u rtw as a cu tel yaw are of M or r i s ’ s pr i orr ecor d. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad pr evi ous l yr educe d M orr i s ’ s s ent ence on hi s i ni t i al drug cons pi r acyvi ol at i on i n 2000 t o a t erm w el l bel ow the advi s orygui del i ne ran g e. A p p en d ix (A p p . ) 55 -56 . N ev erthe less, w ith in o n e y ea r of h is r elea se, an d co n tr ary t o t he t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, M orr i s comm i t t ed anotherdrug offe ns e. T he D istri ct C o u rtn o ted c o n ce rn w ith M o rri s’s h ist o ryo f re cidiv ism , an d w ith the d an g ers5

p o se d to so c ietyth e re b y . A p p . 6 0 . T h e D istric t C o u rt th u s re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t a se n ten c e a t th e lo w e st e n d o f th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e s ra n g e , b u t se rv e d c o n se c u tiv e lyto th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e s ta te c o u rt f o r h is u n d e rl y in g d ru g o f f e n s e , w a s a p p ro p ri a te . W e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng i t s s ent ence . I V. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .