2010 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 9-16-2010 

# U SA v . C hri s t ophe r S ancho 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 . 09-3724

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_2010

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 2010 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 . C hr i s t op he r S ancho " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 605. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/605NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 3724

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T OP HE R S ANC HO, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cr - 00479- 003 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

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

Sept ember13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember16, 2010) OP I NI ONT he indi ctm entchar ged Sancho w i t h vi ol at i ons of 21 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) (d istrib u tio n , p o ss e ss io n w ith in te n t to d istri b u te, an d m an u fa cture o f c rac k co ca ine), 18 U .S .C . § 1952( a) ( 3) ( i nt er s t at e trave l i n ai d of drug t r aff i cki ng and cons pi r acyt o do the s ame) , 21 U . S. C . § 843( b) ( us e of a c o mmu n i c a t i o n f

a c i l i tyt o f

a c i l i t a t e d ru g t r a f

f i c k i n g ) , a n d 2 1 U. S . C. § 846 ( cons pi r acy t o di s t r i but e fi fty gr ams or m o re o f cr ack co ca ine). 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antC hr i s t opherSancho, w ho w as s ent ence d t o for t y - ei ghtm ont hs i m pr i s onm entaft erpl eadi ng gui l t yt o a one- counti nform at i on char gi ng hi m w i t h us e of a comm uni cat i on fac i l i t y( t el ephone/ cel l phone) t o fac i l i t at e drug t r aff i cki ng i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 3 (b), ap p ea ls from h is sen tenc e. S an ch o claim s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt e rr e d in n o t g ra n tin g h im a tw o -l e v e l r e d u c tio n a t s e n te n c in g u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byfi ndi ng t hatSancho w as not tru thf u l i n h is st atem en ts r eg ard ing h is r o le i n the o ff en se, an d that the D istri ct C o u rt err ed bydeny i ng hi m a thr ee- l evel dow nw ar d departur e underU . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1 for a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. I.

F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory T he maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entforvi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 843( b) i s four y ea rs. S h o rt lyaf

ter th e inf

o rm ati o n w as f

il ed , S an ch o an d sev era l co-d ef en d an ts w ere named i n a fi ve- countSuper s edi ng I ndi ctm entchar gi ng var i ous drug offe ns es . T he 13

G overnm entagr eed t o di s m i s s t he Super s edi ng I ndi ctm enti f Sancho pl ed gui l t yt o t he char ge thatw as t he s ubj ectof the ea r l i eri nform at i on and t o r ecomm end a thr ee- l evel re d u c tio n , if w a rra n ted , fo r a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty . A s n o ted e a rlier , S a n c h o d id in fac tpl ead gui l t yas agr eed. T he Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed an of fens e l evel of tw enty - s even f or Sancho. T he bas e off

ens e l evel w as t hi r t y - t w o pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1 beca us e the drug d i stri bu t i on i nv olved be t w een 1 50 and 50 0 g ram s of crack co cai ne. T hat base offe ns e l evel w as r educe d t w o l evel s beca us e the pr obat i on offi ce be l i eved thatSancho had mett he s afe t yval ve r equi r ement s of U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) , and anothert hr ee leve ls fo r S an ch o ’s ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ity . T h e p rob ati o n o ff ice a cc ep ted S an ch o ’s r epr es ent at i ons t hathe w as i nvol ved i n t he drug t r ans act i on ati s s ue onl yas a fa vort o a fr i end, t hati tw as an hones tm i s t ake w hi ch he ne veri nt ended t o go t hr ough w i t h, and that h e w as n ev er inv o lved w ith the s ale o f d rug s p ri o r t o this si n g le i n cide n t. S an ch o ’s g u ideline ra n g e b ase d o n an o ff en se lev el of

tw en ty -sev en an d a C ri m inal H ist o ry C ateg o ryI w as se v en tyto eig h ty -sev en m o n ths. H o w ev er, be ca u se th e statuto ry m axi m um i m pr i s onm entfort he off ens e i s foury ear s , t he r ecomm ended gui del i ne s e n te n c e w a s f

o rt y -e ig h t m o n th s . See U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1 . 2 (a). Sancho r eques t ed i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi de a t hr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yas w el l as a tw o- l evel r educt i on pur s uantt o t he s afe t yval ve r equi r ement s , not i ng t hatt he PSR found hi m el i gi bl e andT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d i c tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 3231 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S.C . § 1 291 and 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 4 ci t i ng fur t herevi dence as t o hi s ent i t l ement . T he G overnm entr es ponded, oppos i ng t he t w o- l evel r educt i on. A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the tw o- l evel s afe t yval ve r educt i on sta tin g (1 ) th a t a tw o -le v e l re d u c tio n to th e g u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld still cre a te a ra n g e in exce s s of the four - y earm axi m um and ( 2) t hat , as a fi ndi ng of fa ct , Sancho di d notm eet t he r equi r ement s on t he mer i t s beca us e he mi ni m i zed hi s r ol e i n t he i nci dentand l i ed w h en h e d en ied h av ing p arti cipa ted in d rug tr af fick ing b ef

o re. T h e D istri ct C o u rt decl i ned t o fi nd t hatSancho ac cept ed r es pons i bi l i t yand furt herdeni ed the thr ee- l evel r educt i on as m ootbeca us e the r educt i on w oul d notbr i ng Sancho’ s gui del i ne bel ow t he four - y earm axi m um . A ft ercons i der i ng t he fa ct or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e o f f o rty -e ig h t m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t, and a one - y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Sancho appe al s hi s s ent ence . II. Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew 2 W e r evi ew “the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes de novo and s crut i ni ze[ ] anyfi ndi ngs of fa ctus ed i n t he ca l cul at i on forcl earerr or . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ood , 526 F. 3d 82, 85 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “B eca us e the s ent enci ng j udge ‘ i s i n a uni que pos i t i on t o eval uat e a de fenda nt ’ s acc ept ance of5

re sp o n sib ili ty ,’ w e g iv e g re a t d e f e re n c e o n re v iew to a se n ten c in g ju d g e ’s d e c isio n n o t to appl yt he tw o- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yt o a part i cul ardefe ndant . ” U nited S tates v. B arr , 9 6 3 F .2 d 6 4 1 , 6 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (q u o tin g U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 c m t. n . 5 ). III . D i s cus s i on U nderU . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm aydi s r egar d a s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence i n t he ca s e of a n offe ns e under21 U . S. C . §§ 841, 844, 846, 960, or963 w hen the d ef en d an t m ee ts th e f

ive c ri teri a li sted : ( 1 ) no t hav ing m o re tha n o n e c ri m inal h ist o ry poi nt ; ( 2) notus i ng vi ol ence orpos s es s i ng a fi r earm / danger ous w eapon i n connec t i on w i t h t he off

ens e; ( 3) t he off

ens e di d notr es ul ti n death ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt o any one; ( 4) t he def

endantw as nota l eade r/ or gani zerof other s i n t he off ens e; and ( 5) t he defe ndanthas t rut hful l ypr ovi ded the G overnm ental l t he i nform at i on and evi dence t he defe ndanthas conce r ni ng t he off ens e. U nderU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) , “[i ] f the d e f e n d a n t m e e ts th e c ri te ri a s e t f o rt h in s u b d iv is io n s (1 ) – (5 ) o f s u b s e c tio n (a ) o f

§ 5 C 1 .2

. . . decr eas e [the bas e off ens e l evel ] by2 l evel s . ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Sancho’ s r eques tfort he tw o- l evel s afe t yval ve r educt i on u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 1 ) b e c a u se th e re su lti n g g u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld b e w e ll i n exce s s of the fort y - ei ghtm ont h m axi m um s ent ence . T hi s r ai s es an i s s ue of l aw . Sancho ar gues t hatt he tw o- l evel r educt i on s houl d be made fr om t he four - y ears t atut or ym axi m um6

and notfr om t he r ecomm ended gui del i ne off ens e l evel . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed that ar gum entbeca us e i tcons t rued the l anguage “dec r eas e by2 l evel s ” t o m ean a r educt i on f ro m th e b a se o f

f e n se lev e l ca lcu late d b e f o re U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .1 (a ) is a p p lied . T h a t is co n sist en t w ith the p lai n lang u ag e o f § 2 D 1 . 1 (b)(1 1 ) an d § 5 G 1 . 1 (a). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o s ta te d th a t S a n c h o d id n o t m e e t a ll o f th e c ri te ri a in § 5 C 1 .2 beca us e i tbel i eved thatSancho w as nott rut hful r egar di ng hi s r ol e i n t he off ens e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a s peci fi c fi ndi ng t hatSancho’ s “i nvol vementw as fargr eat ert han [he] w ant [s ] t o admi tt o att hi s poi nt . ” A pp. at71a. A l t hough t he G overnm entdi d not obj ectt o t he PSR , w hi ch i ncl uded a s um m aryof Sancho’ s i nt ervi ew w i th t he pr obat i on o ff icer w h ere h e c lai m ed this w as a n h o n est, o n e-ti m e m ist ak e, i n it s resp o n se to S an ch o ’s s ent enci ng m emora ndum as w el l as i n a pr offe ri tm ade a ts ent enci ng, t he G overnm ent re p e a ted lysta ted th a t itd id n o t b e liev e th a t S a n c h o h a d b e e n tru th f u l ab o u t h is i n v o l v e m e n ti n t h i s o f

f e n s e a n d o t h e rd ru g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y. In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t S a n c h o h a d m in im ize d h is ro le. T h is is n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s a s th e D istric t C o u rt su p p o rte d th is f in d in g b a se d o n th e e v id e n c e in t he PSR as w el l as t he pr offe rm ade byt he G overnm ent , even though t he pr offe rr el i ed on w hat Sanc ho further cal l s “corrup tsources, ” nam el yS anch o’s co- defe nd ants . T he D i s t r i ctC our tbyt he t i m e of Sanc ho’ s s ent enci ng had pr es i ded overt he s ent enci ng of one of

Sancho’ s co- defe ndant s w ho t he G overnm entpr offe r ed w oul d have t es t i fi ed thatSancho had be en i nvol ved i n num er ous drug t r ans act i ons . T he G overnm ent7

w oul d al s o have pr es ent ed tw o ot herw i t nes s es w ho w oul d have pr ovi ded s i m i l ar t es t i m ony . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o s uppor t ed i t s fi ndi ng w i t h evi dence r egar di ng t aped p h o n e c a lls th a t in d ica te S a n c h o h a d a g re a ter in v o lv e m e n t in th e c h a rg e d o f f e n se , as w e ll as i t s bel i ef thatSancho w as bei ng unt rut hful w hen he a ddr es s ed the court . T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterrbycons i der i ng t he pr offe rbyt he G overnm entand the pot ent i al t es t i m onyof the “c or rupts our ces , ” and i t s deci s i on nott o appl y§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. W e turn t o S anch o’s chal l eng e t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s rej ect i on of S anch o’s r equ est fora thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . Sancho ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcons i derhi s r eques t . Sancho i s m i s t aken. I ti s evi dentt hatt he D istric t C o u rt di d cons i dert hi s r eques tw hen i ts t at ed that“[i ] t ’ s es s ent i al l yal s o a moot p o in t b e c a u se o f

th e sta tu to rilyc a p p e d se n ten c e o f 4 8 m o n th s.” A p p . at 7 7 a . T h is is s i m i l art o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he tw o- l evel s afe t yval ve r educt i on w as i nap pli cable, becau se even w i t h the r edu ct i on s the g uidel i ne rang e w ou l d st i l l be in excess o f th e sta tu to rym a x im u m . U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (a ) sta tes th a t “[ i]f th e d e f e n d a n t cle a rly d e m o n s t r a t e s a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f

o rh i s o f f e n s e , d e c r e a s e t h e o f

f e n s e l e v e l b y 2 lev e ls,” w ith a n a d d iti o n a l o n e -le v e l re d u c tio n if th e d e f e n d a n t m e e ts th e re q u ire m e n ts in U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (b). T he PSR i ncl uded a thr ee- l evel r educt i on i n i t s cal cul at i on of an of fens e l evel of t w enty - s even, w hi ch, w hen t aken t ogetherw i t h a C r i m i nal H i s t or yC at egoryof I and thet w o - l e v e l s a f e t y v a l v e r e d u c t i o n , r e s u l t e d i n t h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e o f s e v e n t y t o e i g h t yse v e n m o n th s, m o re th a n th e sta tu to rym a x im u m . In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted its di ffi cul tybel i evi ng t hatSancho i s el i gi bl e fort he thr ee- l evel r educt i on due t o hi s cons t ant at t empt s t o m i ni m i ze hi s r ol e. T hi s det erm i nat i on i s r evi ew ed forcl earerr or , and w e fi nd none. T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatt hr ee- l evel r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yi nappl i cabl e. I V. C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h, w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .

8