2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-16-2004 

# U S A v . B o s t P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3917

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Bos t " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 492. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/492NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case No: 03-3917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. SARA BOST,

Appellant
.

_________________

___ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Crim . No. 02 -265) District Judge: The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway , Jr.

_________________

_____ Submitted Purs uant to Thi rd Circuit LAR 34.1

June 18, 2004 Before: ALITO, SMITH, and WALLACE, Circuit Ju dges*

(Filed: July 16, 2004)

_________________

_ OPINION OF

THE COURT

_________________

__

_________________

_ *The Honorable J. Cliffor d Walla ce, Senior Circ uit Judge for the United States Cour

t of Appea

ls for the Ninth Cir

cuit, sitt ing by de signation.1 In the district court, the defendant did not challenge her sentencing under

Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , and she ha s not rai sed Apprendior Blakely v. Washington , 2004 WL 140269 7 (June 24, 2004), on appeal. Moreover, sentence here w as within the g uideline rang e for the ba se offense level. 2 WALLACE, Senior Circ uit Judge
. Sara Bost pl eaded gui lty to witness tampering in v iolatio n of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) . The pa

rties agr eed that he

r base off ense leve l was 12 pur suant to U.S.S .G. § 2J 1.2 (2002) , and the g overnm ent recom mende d that she r

eceive a 2- point reduc tion based on

her acc eptance o f responsibility. The distr ict court, citing Bost ’s alle ged involvem ent in a related brib ery s chem e, sentenced Bost to 12 month s impr

isonment, the highest sentence withi n the applic able guideline range. On appeal, Bost argues that the distric t court com

mitte d clear e

rror by basing her sentence on the bribe ry al legations. 1 We first reject the governm ent’s argument that we la ck jurisdiction over Bost’s t imely appeal. That the

district c ourt im

posed a sent

ence wit hin the applicable

guideline range does no t comp el the conc lusion that j urisdiction is lacking. Rather, we may exercise jurisdiction over any “otherwise final sentence”—including those imposed within the applicable guideline range—when a defendan t claims the sen tence “was imposed in violatio n of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1 ); see also United States v. N appi , 243 F.3d 758, 762 (3d Cir. 2001).3

Bost did not raise a tim

ely obj ection to the district court’ s relianc e on the audiotap es and vid eotapes, so we review her sen tence for pl ain error. Nappi , 243 F.3d at 76 3. Turning to Bost’s first claim, w e agree that the district court had an obligat ion to no tify the partie s of the evi dence it might use at sent encing. See U.S.S .G. § 6A 1.3(a); Nappi , 243 F.3 d at 763. T he distric t court did n ot violate this notice requirement here. Transcripts of the recordings were before the district court and a

ccessible to the part

ies, and t he court w ent out of it s way to warn B ost at the begi nning of the sentencinghearing th at such “ relevant conduct and

offense conduct is so methi ng the Court can take into accoun

t.” Bost clearly

grasped the significa nce of the district c ourt’s w arning, be cause she specific ally “

urge[d] ” the court at the sentencing hearing “not to consider those other matters.” T here was no plain error. Second, Bost maintains th at the distr ict court s hould not have

applied the maxim um sen tence within the applicable gui deline ra nge becaus e the gover

nment did not establish her complicity by a preponderance of the evidence. The cases Bost cites for this evidentiary standard a

re inapposite, beca

use they all involve guideline enhancem ents . E.g. , United States v. Seiler , 348 F.3d 265 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. G ill , 348 F.3 d 147 (6th Cir . 2003); United States v. Behler ,4

14 F.3d 1264 (8th Cir. 1994). A district court’s choice of sentence within a particula r guideline

range is a

purely discretio nary j udgmen

t, which does not necessita te any particula r factua l findings. At most, a dist rict cour t bears a responsibility to ensure that the evidence consulted for these purposes “has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy,” United States v. Yeaman , 194 F.3d 44 2, 463 (3d Cir. 1999), quoting U.S. S.G. § 6A1.3, Comm entary , and Bost

does not dispute that the audio and video recor

dings consider ed here meet this standard
. Thus, no pl ain error has been demonstrated in Bost’s 12-mont h sentenc e. AFFIRMED.