The H onor abl e Ros em ar y S. Pool er , or i gi nal l y s chedul ed t o be a m em ber of t he p ane l hea r i ng t hi s ap pea l , was *

u n a b le to p a r tic ip a te . T h e a p p e a l h a s b e e n d e c id e d b y th e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e r s o f th e p a n e l, w h o a r e in a g r e e m e n t. S ee 2 d C ir. L o c a l R u les, Inte rn a l O p e ra ti n g P ro c e d u re E (b ). 1 09- 0219- cr ( L ) , 09- 0419- cr ( C on) U SA v. Bl ue UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to a summ ary order filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a d oc um en t f

il edwi thth is c ou r t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

an el ect r on ic da ta ba se (

wi thth e n ot at io n " su m m ar y o r de r ") . A p ar ty

ci ti ng a su m m ar

y o r de r must serve a copy of iton any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e twenty-sixt h day of April, t wo thousand an d ten. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges .*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee ,
v. Nos. 09-0219-cr(L) 09-0419-cr(Con) L EE B L UE and R I CKY B L UE ,

Defenda nts-App ellants, T I MO T HY G I V EN S , also known as Florida Tim, L AWR ENCE G I V EN S , al s o kno wn as La wr enc e Alb r it to n, als o kno wn as La

wr enc e Rui s e, B R UCE B L UE , S OL OMON REN F R OE , als o kno wn as Sal , L EON A R D S M I TH , als o kno wn as Le nny, J A NE I R O H. TARVE R , als o kno wn as J uk e, D EXT ER C L A YT ON , also known as JP, W I L L I E B R OC K I NGT ON , also known as Big Man, TYR ONE H OL T ON ,T he Cl er k of C our t i s di r ect ed t o a m end t he o ff i ci al ca pt i on t o co nf

or m t o t he l i s t i ng of

t he p ar t i es s t at ed ** abo ve. A lt h o u g h d e fe n d a n ts’ i n it ial no ti c e s o f a p p e a l w e re n o t t im e ly, t h e go v e rn m e n t ha s w a ive d an y o b jec ti o n to

1

u n tim e lin e ss . Se eU n it

e d St at e s v . Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 234 ( 2d C i r . 2008 ) ( hol di ng t hat Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( b) i s not ju risd iction a l a n d tha t t h e go v e rn m e n t m a y w a ive o b jec ti o n to a n u n ti m e ly a p p e a l)

. 2 als o kno wn as J oe B lo w, E I L EE N M AR QUEZ , a lso kn ow n a s Qu ee n B, R OS COE S KI NNER , and S HA WN W OODY , al s o kno wn as Di r ty ,

Defenda nts .**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELLANTS: B r uce R. B ryan, Syr acus e, N Y, fo r de fe ndant -appella nt Ric ky Bl ue . Le e B lu e, pro se, F air to n, NJ , for defendan t-app ellant L ee Bl ue .
F OR AP P ELLEE : St eph en B aczyn s ki, As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney (KathleenM . M ehl tr et te r , Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , on the brief ), Office of the United States Attorney for the Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k, B uf

falo , N Y. App eal f r om ju dgm ent s of

th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Char

les J . Si r agu s a, Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED th at the j ud gm ent

agai ns t d ef

end ant -a pp ell ant

Rick y B lu e is AF F IRME D a nd de fe nd a nt- a pp el la nt L ee Blu e’ s ca use is REMA NDED for r esentencing consistent with this order. Def end ant s -a pp ell ant s Le e B lu e andRick y B lu e ( “de fe nd ant s ”) app eal f r omth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s ju dgm ent s dat ed D ecem ber 12, 200 8 an d J anu ary 6, 200 9, r es pec ti vely. B oth ch all eng e only 1 th eir s ent enc es . We b r

ief ly r eco un t the p os t- con

vic ti onpr oce du r al his to ry of th eir cas es , b ut we as s um e the p ar ti es ’s fa milia r it y with the r emainin g f

actual andpr oce du r al his to ry. Defendants were convi cted of various crimes in 2002 related to their participation in a drug distr ibution enterprise. Ricky

Blue was sentenced to a te rm of lif e imprisonment for

enga ging in a Con ti nuin g Cr

im in al En te rpr

is e invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. § 84 8. L ee B lu e was s ent enc ed t o 2 28 mo nths ’ im pr

is on men t f

or di s tr ib ut in g 5 gr ams or

mo r e of coc ain e bas e invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C.3

§ 84 1(a)( 1) . B oth ap peal ed t o thi s Cou r t, with L ee B lu e ch all eng in g only his s ent enc e andRick y B lu e ch all eng

in g bo thhi s con

vic ti onands ent enc e. I n a s um mar y or der dat ed J un e 1, 200 5, w e affirmed Ricky

Blue’s conviction but, in light of the Supreme C ourt’s intervening dec ision in United States v. Bo oker

, 543 U.S. 2 20 (2005), we remanded both sentences for fur ther proceedings purs uant to our opinion in Uni

te d St ate s v . Cr o sby , 39 7 F .3d103 (2 d Ci r . 20 05)

. See United States v. Givens ( Given s I ), Nos. 03-1109-cr et al., 2005 WL 1317015 (2d Ci r. June 1, 2005). On remand, the District Court determined that its original sentence s would not “ha ve b een nontrivially different under the post- Boo ker[ ] r egi me, ” Cro sby , 39 7 F .3dat 1 19, and , acc or di ngl y, decline d to vaca te its or

iginal sentences. Defendants aga in appea led to this Court.
I n a s eco nds um mar

y or der dat ed J uly 18 , 20 08, we co ncl ud ed that th e Di s tr ict Cou r t e r r ed inim po s in g a m and ato ry li fe s ent enc e onRick y B lu e pu r s uan t t o 2 1 U. S.C. § 84 8( b) bec aus e “cr

it ical s tatut or y f act or s ” ha d b eenfo un d b y the j ud ge, no t the j ur y. Uni te d St ate s v . Gi v en s ( Givens II ), No s. 05- 518 9- cr et

al. , 20 08 WL

279 634 1, a t * 3 (

2dCir . J uly 18 , 20 08) . We ther ef or e vac ate d Ri cky B lu e’s sentence a nd remanded for resentencing under 21 U.S.C . § 848(a ). We a lso remanded Lee Blue’s sentence in lig ht of Kimbrough v. United Sta tes , 55 2 U. S. 8 5 (2007), and pursuant this Court ’s decision in Uni te d St ate s v . Re ga lado , 518 F.3d 143 (2d C ir. 2008). Regala do adopted Cro sby ’s procedure of r emanding sentences to allow the District Court (1) to consider whether it would hav e imposed a different sentence in lig ht of intervening Supreme Court pr eced ent , an d, (2) i f s o, to vacat e the o r igi nal s ent enc e andr es ent enc e the d ef end ant . Se e Re

ga lado , 518 F.3d at 149. A lthough we indi cated tha t we we re remanding Lee Blue’s sentence “ purs uant to” Reg alado , o ur s um mar y or der “vac ate d” his or

igi nal s ent enc e andr ema nd ed the c as e “f or full r es ent enc in g.” Givens II

, 2008 WL 2796341, a t *1, *3. Thus, despite purpor ting to remand “pursuant to ” Reg alado , we did not, in fa ct, follow the procedure set forth in Reg alado and Cro sby

. On re ma nd for t he sec on d ti me , t he Di stri ctC ou rt re sen te nc ed R ic ky Blu e t o 3 60 mo nth s’ im pr is on men t, whi ch w as at the highendof th e s ent enc in g r ang e pr es cr ib ed b y the U ni te d S tat es Sentenci ng Guideline s (“Guidelines”). At Lee Blue’s resentencing hea ring, the Distr ict Court con s truedou r

(ad mi tt edly un clea r

) s um mar y or der as hav in g vac ate d L ee B lu e’s s ent enc e, ev en th ough that

was “s om ewh at a t o dd s with the Reg alado cas e.” Gov’t App. 33-34. At the c onclusion of t he pro ce ed in gs t he Di stri ctC ou rt sta te d a s fol lo ws: T he Co ur t h avi ng c on s id er ed the Regala do dec is io n an d the s ent enc in g f act or s s et fo r thin18 U .S. C. Se ct

io n 3 553

. . . [a] ndit s ov er all char ge t o i mp os e a s ent enc e s uf fi cien t b ut no t g r eat er th an n eces s ary t o co mp ly wi thth os e r equ ir eme nt s is vaca ting, to the extent it nee ds to, the or iginalsentence, a nd is res entencing Mr. Leander Blue, Lee Blue, to 168 months[’] incarceration.4

Id

. at 5 1. D es pi te r es ent enc in g L ee B lu e, the D is tr ict Cou r t n ever

or der ed a n ew p r es ent enc e inves tigat ive r epo r t ( “P SR”) anddi d n ot giv e L ee B lu e the o pp or tu ni ty to add r es s th e Cou r t at

hi s s ent enc in g he ar

in g. I. Ri ck

y Bl ue ’s S en te nc e On appea l Ric ky Blue argues that his sentence wa s (1) s ubstantively unreasonable in light of hi s adv ance d ag e andth e s ent enc es r ecei vedby s im ila rly s ituat ed c o- def end ant s , an d (

2) pr oce du r ally unreasonable be cause the District Court did not fully appreciate its authority to impose a nonGuid el in e se nte nc e f

or c ra ckco ca in e o ffe nse s. We f in d n o s ub s tan ti

ve err or inth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s dec is io n t o i mp os e a s ent enc e of 360 mo nths ’ im pr

is on men t. See United States v. Ca vera , 55 0 F .3d180 , 18 9 ( 2dCir . 20 08) (e n b anc) (noting tha t w e wil l “ seta sid e a di stri ctco urt ’s substan tive determination only in e xceptiona l cases where the tr ial cou r t’ s dec is io n can no t b e lo cat ed w ithi n the r ang e of

permi s s ib le d ecis io ns ”) ; see also United St ate s v . Rig as , 58 3 F .3d108 , 12 3 (

2dCir . 20 09) (e xp lai ni ng that s ub s tan ti ve u nr eas on abl ene s s is aki n to the “manifest-injust

ice,” and “shocks-the-conscience” standa rds employe d in other contexts). The District Court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C . § 3553 fa ctors, including Ric ky Blue’s age, but conclude d that they did not wa rrant a lower sentence. With respect to dis parity, the District Court no te d that Rick y B lu e’s mo s t c om par abl e co -d ef end ant was Tim othy Give ns , an d that Gi ven s had actually r ecei

veda gr eat er

s ent enc e. Cf. Un ited States v. Fernandez , 44 3 F .3d19, 28 (

2dCir . 20 06) (“[W]e hold tha t . . . a disparity betwe en no n-s imil arl y situated co-defendants is not a valid ba sis for a clai m of err or under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).”). We find no error in the Distr

ict Court’s analy sis and th er ef or e co ncl ud e that

Rick y B lu e’s s ent enc e is no t s ub s tan ti vely un r eas on abl e. We als o f in d n o p r oce du r al err or

inth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s s ent enc e. T he D is tr ict Cou r t f ully understood that, under Kimbrough , it couldvar y f r omth e Gu

id eli nes bec aus e of

th e di s par

it y be tw een the recommended sentenc es for crack c ocaine offenses and powde r cocaine offenses . It concluded, howeve r, that the crack-to-powder disparity had no impact on R icky Blue’s sentence ba sed on the large a mount of powder cocaine that was also attributable to him.
I n s um , Ric ky B lu e’s s ent enc e is nei th er s ub s tan ti vely no r pr oce du r ally un r eas on abl e. Acco r di ngl

y, we af fi r m the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s ju dge men t w

ith r es pec t t o Ri cky B lu e. II. Lee B lu e’ s Se nt en ce Lee Blue adva nces a number of arguments on appeal including (1) that his sentencing cou ns el wa s in ef

fe ct ive fo r faili ng t o m ake c er tai n o bj ect io ns to th e Gu

id eli nes calc ul ati on s at his resentencing, (2) that the District Court err ed in determining the qua ntity of drugs attributable to5

him, and (3) that the District Court err ed in not ordering a newPSR and in de nying Lee Blue the opportunity to s peak a t his s entencing . We conclude that a remand is required for the Dis trict Court to conduct a full resentencing in acc ordance with our J uly 18, 20 08 order. As no te d ab ov e, o ur

J uly 18 , 20 08 s um mar

y or der r ema ndin g L ee B lu e’s cas e f or fu r th er proceedings wa s far f

rom clear. Ordinarily, whe n we remand a sentence pursuant to Reg alado , the dec is io n t o v acat e the o r

igi nal s ent enc e is lef

t t o the D is tr

ict Cou r t. See 518 F. 3dat 1 49. I n thi s cas e, h owe ver , we vacat ed the o r igi nal s ent enc e and

remanded pursuant to Reg alado . M or eov er , we or der ed a “ full r e- s ent enc in g” f or Le e B lu e. See Givens I

I , 20 08 WL

279 634 1, a t * 1, * 3. Altho ughr ema nd s bas ed o n a “ s pec if ic s ent enc in g err or ” ar e no t o r di nar ily s ub ject to a f ull r es ent enc in g, “ we m us t l oo k t o b oth the s pec if ic dict ate s of

th e r ema ndor der

as well as th e br oad er s pi r it of th e ma nd ate ” t o d et er mi ne the p r op er s cop e of pr oce edi ngs onr ema nd

. United Sta tes v. Quin tieri , 306 F.3d 1217, 1 227 (2d Cir. 2002 ) (internal quotation marks omitt ed). Here, the remand order explicitly provided tha t Lee Blue’s s entence was vac ated and required the Distr

ict Court to con du ct a “ ful l r e- s ent enc in g.” Givens II

, 2 00 8 WL 27 96 34 1, a t * 1, *3 (e mp ha sis a dd ed ). Thu s, des pi te th e or di nar

y pr oce du r e calledfo r

by Reg alado , we c on clu de that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t w as required to comply with the specific terms our July 18, 2008 order and conduct a full resentencing of Le e B lu e. We ther ef or e r ema ndfo r

a f ull r es ent enc in g inacco r dan ce wi thou r J uly 18 , 20 08 o r der

. Su ch r es ent enc in g s hall b e pr eced ed b y the p r epar ati onof a new PS R, see Fed. R. C rim. P. 32, and Le e B lu e s hall b e gi

venth e op po r tu ni ty

to add r es s th e Cou r t at

th e s ent enc in g he ar

in g, see Fe d. R. Cr im . P . 32 (i )(4) . I n l igh t o f o ur

dec is io n t o r ema ndfo r

a f ull r es ent enc in g we d o n ot r eachLe e Blu e’ s re ma in in g a rgu me nts. CONCLUSI ON
I n acc or dan ce wi thth e f

or ego in g we AF F IRM the Distr ict Court’s judgment with respect to Rick y B lu e. With r es pec t t o L ee B lu e, we REMA ND the cause for full resentencing consistent with this or der. FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court