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 10-8-2009 

# U SA v . N orm an Thom a 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 . 08-4540

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . N orm an Thom as " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 494. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/4941 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- 4540

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

vs. N O RM A N LEE TH O M A S, A ppel l ant

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C r i m . N o. 1- 07- cr - 00192- 003) D i s t r i ctJ udge: Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________ 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: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2009)

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

D efe ndantpl eade d gui l t yt o pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne and coca i ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) . I n det erm i ni ng t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng2

gu i deli ne, t he D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd t hat defend ant had d i stri bu t ed co cai ne b ase i n ex cess of 4. 5 ki l ogr ams. A l t hough t he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor tr es ul t ed i n a G ui del i ne r ange of 262 t o 327 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on, t hatr ange w as l ow er ed t o 240 m ont hs , t he statu torym ax im u m . R esp o n d ing to the g o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n to a d o w n w ard d ep arture an d in co n side rati o n o f th e d ef en d an t’ s o n g o ing an d su b stan ti al co o p era ti o n , the C o u rt i m pos ed a s ent ence of 139 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand a thr ee- y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e. D efe ndantcont ends t hat , i n fi ndi ng t he amountof coc ai ne i nvol ved, t he C our terr ed byus i ng evi dence t hathe s uppl i ed i n a pr offe r . T he governm entas s er t s t hat i thad i ndepende nts our ces fordet erm i ni ng t he amountof i l l egal drugs , i ncl udi ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded byconfi dent i al i nfor m ant s befor e the def endant ’ s arr es t , as w el l as s t a t e m e n t s d e f

e n d a n tm a d e t o t h e p o l i c e b e f o r e e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t . We have c ar eful l yr evi ew ed the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , i ncl udi ng t he tr ans cr i ptof the hear i ng, and conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng t hatt he quant i t yof i l l egal drug s w as cal culat ed b ased on evidence indep end ent of t he p roffer and w as, t her efor e, pr oper l yus ed i n det erm i ni ng t he s ent ence . See U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 5 5 6 , 5 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c ) (“ th is C o u rt . . . rev iew [ s] f a c tu a l f in d in g s re lev a n t to the G u idelines fo r clear e rror an d . . . ex erc ise[s] p lena ryrev iew o v er a d istri ct co u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes ”) ; s ee a l s o U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 8( b) ( 1) ( “The pr ovi s i ons of s ubs ect i on ( a) [s t at i ng t hats el f- i ncr i m i nat i ng i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded pur s uantt o pl ea3

agr eementcannotbe us ed i n det erm i ni ng gui del i ne r ange] s hal l notbe appl i ed t o r es t r i ct th e u se o f

in f o rm a tio n [ ] k n o w n to th e g o v e rn m e n t pr i ort o ent er i ng i nt o the coope r at i on agr eem ent ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

W e al s o concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgave “ m eani ngful cons i der at i on” to th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 f a c to rs a n d a p p lied th e m re a so n a b lyto th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is c a se . S e e U n ited S tate s v . L e ss n e r, 4 9 8 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 3 -0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t a s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e w her e the di s t r i ctcour tdemonst r at es “meani ngful c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )” a n d su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le w h ere itap p li es th o se f ac tors “re aso n ab lyto the circu m stan ce s o f th e c ase ”). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e J u d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .