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 2-12-2009 

# U SA v . B ai ley 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 . 07-2480

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l 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 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B ai ley " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1874. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1874NOT 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. 07- 2480

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E L L E RI BA I L E Y, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00619- 3) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynt hi a M . R ufe Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February6, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and

H A Y D E N , D i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: February12, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den, D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( N ew ark) , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge . E l l er i B ai l eypl ed gui l t yt o one countof di s t r i but i ng a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , and 18 U . S. C . § 2. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtfou nd t hat B ai l eyhad t w o p ri or conv i ct i on s for contr oll ed sub st ances o ffen ses, t her ebyqual i fy i ng hi m as a ca r eeroffe nderpur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( b) . T he gui del i ne r ange w as 188 t o 235 m ont hs . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B ai l eyt o 188 m ont hs i n pr i s on fol l ow ed bya s i x y eart erm of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne of $2, 000. 00, and s ever al ot hercondi t i ons . H e fi l ed a t i m el yappea l . B ai l ey ’ s couns el has fi l ed a br i ef r eques t i ng perm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), beca us e af

t era cons ci ent i ous r evi ew of the r ecor d, he i s unabl e t o di s cern anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n as s es s i ng an A nd ers br i ef, w e mustdet erm i ne: 1) w hethercouns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues and has expl ai ned w hyanys uch i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous ; and 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any n o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 389 F. 3d 424, 425 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . I f the A nd ers b ri ef ap p ea rs adequa t e on i t s fac e, w e r evi ew onl yt he por t i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed i n t he br i ef a nd anyi s s ues r ai s ed byan appe l l anti n a pr o s e b ri e f. S e e Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. W e fi nd t hat coun sel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s adequa t e and, as B ai l eyhas notfi l ed a pr o s e b rie f , itw ill3

gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. P u rsua n t t o h is ob li g ati o n , co u n sel h as id en ti fied a sin g le po tential issue to su p p o rt an appe al : w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotgr ant i ng a var i ance bel ow t he gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on the l ength of t i m e thathas el aps ed fr om B ai l ey ’ s comm i s s i on of th e c rim e s th a t led to h is c a re e r o f f e n d e r sta tu s a n d h is p o sitiv e w o rk s in th e c o m m u n ity s i nce then. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s underan abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . See G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 586 ( 2007) . D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, B ai l ey ’ s couns el ar gued thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow t he gui del i ne r ange be caus e the ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ementw as s uppor t ed byconvi ct i ons w hi ch occ ur r ed fi ft een y ear s befor e the def endantcomm i t t ed t he i ns t antoffe ns e and di d notadequa t el yr efl ectB ai l ey ’ s hi s t or yand cha r act er . C ouns el pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence of B ai l ey ’ s vol unt eeract i vi t i es , par t i cul ar l ycoac hi ng fo o tball and b ask etba ll in an at-ri sk y o u th ath let ics p rog ram , arg u ing to the D istri ct C o u rt th a t it s u p p o rt e d a s e n te n c e lo w e r t h a n th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . C o u n sel h as su b m itted th at th is argu m en t m u st fail b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed a s ent ence w i t hi n t he gui del i ne r ange, t aki ng i nt o acc ountB ai l ey ’ s pas tcr i m i nal h ist o ryan d o ther f

ac tors req u ir ed b y1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). W e a g ree . T h e D istri ct C o u rt addr es s ed both as pect s of thi s ar gum enti n i t s comm ent s att he t i m e of s ent enci ng, c o n c lu d in g th a t:

[O ne hundr ed and e i ght y - ei ghtm o n ths ’ i m pr i s onm ent ] happens t o be t he gui del i ne r ange, but t he l ow end of i t , and w hat I have done t o choos e that4

i s t o det erm i ne pas t cr i m i nal conduct , as w el l as t r y i ng t o pr edi ctongoi ng and f u tu re c rim in a l co n d u c t, an d th e b e st p re d icto rs a re th e p a st. I also h av e u se d a ll o f th e inf o rm ati o n p rese n ted a s to M r. B ail ey ’s abi l i t yt o t ouch other s and i nfor m t hem of hope i n t hei rl i ves , t o puty ou att he l ow estend t hat I cou l d o f t he g uidel i nes, no tt hat I am bo un d b yt he g uidel i nes, b u t I think the term is th e righ t on e f o r y o u r historyan d fo r y o u r co n d u ct, M r. B a i l e y. ( A pp. R - 134- 35) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o i m pos e a s ent ence l ow ert han the g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s re a s o n a b le , a n d w o u ld n o t s u p p o rt a n a p p e a l. O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d y i el ds no ot hernon- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s t hat coul d s uppor tan appe al and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he r equi r ement s of A nd ers have be en m e t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , in a se p a ra te o rd e r, g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .