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 10-28-2009 

# U SA v . B a s 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 . 08-3178

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 . B as s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 378. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/378NOT 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- 3178 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A L IF B A S S ,

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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C r i m . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00232- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyR . C hes l er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember30, 2009 B efore: M cK E E , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober28, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Al i f Ba s s a p p e a l s f

r o m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n to f s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I. O n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , B a ss p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f b e in g a f

e lo n in pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eementw i t h t he G overnm ent , s t i pul at i ng thatthe 2005 Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (“ U .S .S .G .”) a p p lied a n d th a t h is to tal o f f e n se lev e l w a s 2 3 . S e e S u p p lem e n tal A p p e n d ix ( “Supp. A pp. ”) at12. T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce ( “Pr obat i on”) pr epar ed a Pr e- Sent ence R ep o rt(“P S R ”) u sing the 2 0 0 5 G u idelines . P rob ati o n co m p u ted B ass’s c ri m inal h ist o ry s c o re to b e 2 0 , p u ttin g h im in c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry V I. S e e P S R ¶ 5 5 . In a p p ly ing the G u idelines , P rob ati o n ad d ed three p o ints t o B ass’s c ri m inal h ist o ry s cor e “f oreac h pr i ors ent ence of i m pr i s onm entexce edi ng one y earand one mont h. ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( a) ( 2005) . B ut , t he G ui del i nes pr ovi de thatonl y“unr el at ed” pr i or s ent ence s ar e t o be count ed s epar at el y . § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) ( 2005) . Pr obat i on det erm i ned that fo u r of B ass’s p ri o r sen tenc es, th o u g h all im p o sed o n the s am e d ay , A p ri l 12 , 2 0 0 4 , w ere “unr el at ed” a nd as s es s ed hi m 12 cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s on t hi s bas i s . Pr obat i on as s es s ed t hr ee mor e cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s bas ed upon anotherpr i ors ent ence , thi s one i m pos ed J ul y12, 2004. PSR ¶¶ 51- 52. O t herfac t or s notati s s ue i n t hi s appea l gener at ed a t ot al cri m i nal hi st oryscore of 20 , and a corr espon ding cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryof V I. B ass fi l ed s om e obj ect i ons t o t he PSR , butpr i ort o s ent enci ng he di s cl ai m ed thos e that “pert ai n[ed] . . . t o hi s C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egorybei ng overr epr es ent ed. ” Supp. A pp. at 37.3

O n J ul y14, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng. I tacc ept ed the p arti es’ sti p u lat ion reg ard ing B ass’s total of fe n se lev el. Italso ad o p ted P rob ati o n ’s cal cul at i on of B as s ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e and c at egoryas s etfor t h i n t he PSR . See J u d g m e n t a n d C o m m itm e n t O rd e r, S ta te m e n t o f R e a s o n s (N o t f

o r P u b lic D is c lo s u re ). T he courtt hen i m pos ed a t erm of i m pr i s onm entw i t hi n t he r ange a s s oci at ed w i t h a t ot al o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 3 a n d a c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f V I. B as s t hen fi l ed thi s appea l , ar gui ng thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e w as m isc a lcu late d . S p e c if

ica lly , B a ss c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in c o u n tin g h is fourA pr i l 12, 2004 s ent ence s s epar at el yand, ther efor e, thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a ni ne- poi nt cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e r educt i on on thatbas i s . H e al s o ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in a ttribu tin g th e Ju ly1 2 , 2 0 0 4 p rio r c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e to h im – b e c a u se h is tw in br ot herA l i , nothe, comm i t t ed thatcr i m e and s erved thats ent ence – and ther efor e thathe i s ent i t l ed to a ( separat e) three- po i nt r edu ct i on on that basi s. 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 juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o § 3 7 4 2 (a). W e enga ge i n pl ai n err orr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng thatB as s ’ s pr i or se n ten c e s w e re n o t “r e late d ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 4 A 1 .2 (a )(2 ), b e c a u se B a ss f a iled to m ake thi s ar gum entt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . See U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 731 (1 9 9 3 ). W e e n g a g e in p lain e rro r re v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to c o u n t th e Ju ly4

12, 2004 s ent ence ( w hi ch B as s cont ends i s at t r i but abl e t o hi s tw i n br otherA l i ) as a pr i or s ent ence w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 4A 1. 1( a) , as w el l , forthe s ame r eas on. See i d. III . A. B as s advanc es m ul t i pl e ar gum ent s as t o w hythe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have tr eat ed hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons as “r el at ed” w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm i s appl i ed the 2005 G ui del i nes . B as s i s m i s t aken. A ppl i cat i on N ot e 3 t o t hatpr ovi s i on i n t he 2005 G ui del i nes expl ai ns : “Pr i ors ent ence s ar e not con si dered rel at ed if theyw ere for offenses t hat w ere s eparat ed b yan int erveni ng arr est ( i . e. , t he def

endanti s arr es t ed fort he fi r s toffe ns e pr i ort o comm i t t i ng the s econd o f f e n s e ). . . . .” § 4 A 1 .2 , c m t. n .3 (2 0 0 5 ). T he fours ent ence s i m pos ed on A pr i l 12, 2004 w er e foroffe ns es s epar at ed byan i nt erveni ng arr es t . B as s w as arr es t ed forthe fi r s toffe ns e ( att empt ed theft ) on D ece m ber 25 , 20 00 , P re- S entence R epo rt(“PS R ”) ¶¶ 42-43 , pri or t o co m m i t t i ng the seco nd off ense ( pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e a c ont r ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool ) on A pr i l 4, 2001, PSR ¶¶ 44- 45. B as s w as arr es t ed forthi s s econd of fens e on t hat s am e day , A pri l 4, 20 01 , P S R ¶¶ 4 4-45, pr i or t o co m m i t t i ng the thi rd offen se (p o ss e ss io n o f

c ra c k c o c a in e ) o n Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , P S R ¶ ¶ 4 7 -4 8 . B a ss w a s a rre ste d f o r th is t hi r d offe ns e on thats ame day , J une 10, 2001, PSR ¶¶ 47- 48, pr i ort o comm i t t i ng the four t h offe ns e ( r ece i ptof s t ol en pr oper t y ) on O ct ober21, 2001, PSR ¶¶ 49- 50.B as s fur t herar gues t hateven i f the 2008 G ui del i nes di d notappl yas a t echni cal 1 m at t er , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have c ons i der ed them i n t he t ot al m i x of s ent enci ng fac t or s as evi dence of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s “‘ curr entthi nki ng’ ” on the s ubj ectof s epar at e pr i ors ent ence s and conc l uded thatB as s ’ s A pr i l 12, 2004 convi ct i ons and s ent ence s s houl d notcounts epar at el y . See B as s B r . 19 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G odi n, 5 2 2 F . 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 8 )). B ec au se, as w e h av e e x p lai n ed , the C o m m issi o n ’s “curr entt hi nki ng” appe ar s t o be s ubs t ant i vel yi dent i cal i n al l r el evantr es pect s t o i t s 2005 th in k in g , w e re

jec t th is a rg u m e n t. 5 Second, B as s ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have a ppl i ed the 2008 G ui del i nes , and thatt hos e G ui del i nes pr eventthe D i s t r i ctC our tfr om count i ng the four A pr i l 12, 2004 s ent ence s s epar at el y( even i f the 2005 G ui del i nes do not ) . W e not e att he out s ett hatB as s s t i pul at ed ats ent enci ng thatthe 2005 G ui del i nes ( and notthe 2008 G ui del i nes ) appl i ed. B utr egar dl es s , B as s i s i ncorr ecton t he mer i t s . T he 2008 G ui del i nes , l i ke the 2005 G ui del i nes , pr ovi de that“[p] r i ors ent ence s al w ay s ar e count ed s epar at el yi f the s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed foroffe ns es thatw er e s epar at ed byan i nt erveni ng arr es t( i . e. , t he def endanti s arr es t ed forthe fi r s toffe ns e pr i ort o comm i t t i ng t he seco nd off

ense). . . . . ” § 4 A 1. 2(a) (2) (2008 ). T herefore, un der the 2 00 8 G uidel i nes, B a s s ’ s A p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 c o n v i c t i o n s s t i l l c o u n ts e p a r a t e l y. 1 T hus , i n deci di ng t o countB as s ’ s fourA pr i l 12, 2004 s ent ence s s epar at el y , the D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted n o erro r, m u ch less p lai n erro r. B. B as s al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave c ons i der ed the pr i or se n ten c e im p o se d o n Ju ly1 2 , 2 0 0 4 b e c a u se th a t se n ten c e a n d th e c o n v ictio n u n d e rly in g it6

w ere h is bro ther A li ’s, n o t his. E v en if th is w ere tru e, an d B ass’s c ri m inal h ist o rysco re w er e ther ebyr educe d fr om 20 t o 17, he s t i l l w oul d be i n cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryV I and there fo re w o u ld b e su b

ject t o the s am e G u idelines ran g e a s the o n e the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned ( undert he 2005 G ui del i nes and eve n underthe 2008 G ui del i nes ) . T her efor e, w e n ee d n o t con side r w h ethe r attri b u ti n g this co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e to B ass w as e rror. I V. Fort he above r eas ons , 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 .