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 4-13-2010 

# U SA v . Ra sheed Ja cob 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 . 08-3276

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 authori 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 . R ashe e d J a c o bs " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1526. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1526H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef Judge , U ni t ed S t at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 08- 3276

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. R A S H E E D J A C O B S , a l s o k n o wn a s RAS HI D J ACOBS R asheed Jacobs, 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 forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 2- 00- cr - 00313- 010 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le J. C u rt is Joyn er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 12, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2010) OP I NI ON

_______W e w il l h ere af ter d ist ing u ish be tw ee n the Jac o b s b roth ers 1 byr efe r r i ng t o them bythei rfi r s tname. 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antR as hi d J acobs appea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence for( 1) pos s es s i on w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; ( 2) p o ss e ss io n w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se (c ra c k ) w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a sc h o o l, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 860; ( 3) us e of a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; and ( 4) pos s es s i on of a f i r e a r m b ya c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. R ash id Ja co b s an d h is y o u n g er b roth er Q u ad re w o rke d fo r th eir olde r bro ther, M a rk , w h o c o n tro lled d ru g o p e ra tio n s o n th e 2 9 0 0 b lo c k o f B o n sa ll S tre e t in N o rth Phi l adel phi a. 1 D ur i ng a s ear ch of the J acobs br other s ’ hous e, l aw enfor cementoffi cer s r ecove r ed a l oaded . 40 cal i berpi s t ol , bul k and pac ked cr ack c ocai ne and c r ack c ocai ne pac kaged f or sa le in c lea r v ials . R a sh id , alo n g w ith th irtee n o th e r in d iv id u a ls, w a s in d icte d w ith c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te m o re th a n f if ty g ra m s o f

c o c a in e b a s e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846, and r el at ed di s tr i but i on and fi r earm s offe ns es . Sever al co- cons pi r at or s t es t i fi ed aboutthe drug oper at i on run bythe J acobs br other s . Forexampl e, A rnol d E ugene M ack te s tif ie d th a t h e “ b e g a n c o o k in g c ra c k c o c a in e ” f o r M a rk a n d R a s h id in 1 9 9 8 . A p p . a t 8 2 .3

R a sh id w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f o n e c o u n t o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

c ra c k w ith th e in ten t to di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; one countof pos s es s i on of cr ack w i th t he i nt entt o di s tr i but e w i thi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 860; one countof us i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; and one c ountof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). A tthe or i gi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our t , aft ercons i der i ng the t es t i m onypr es ent ed, agr eed w i th the conc l us i on i n the pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) that R a s h id a n d h is b ro th e rs w e re re s p o n s ib le f o r t h e d is tr ib u tio n o f

1 1 .2 k ilo g ra m s o f

c ra c k . I tfur therfound thatR as hi d w as i n cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryI , and s ent ence d hi m t o a t ot al of 374 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , s i x y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $2, 000 fi ne, and a $ 4 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t. R a s h id a p p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e a n d th is c o u rt a f f ir m e d b o th . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Jacobs , 96 Fed. A ppx. 812 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( percur i am). H e then pet i t i oned forcert i or ar i . Shor t l yaft eri s s ui ng i t s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , the Supr eme C our tvaca t ed R as hi d’ s s ent ence and r emanded forfur ther c o n s id e ra tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th a t d e c is io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Jacobs , 54 3 U. S. 1 1 0 2 (20 0 5 ). A tthe B ookerr es ent enci ng hear i ng, R as hi d chal l enged the quant i tydet erm i nat i onT hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 2 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . 4 cont ai ned i n the PSR thatw as adopt ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . H e cont ended thati tw as bas ed exc l us i vel yon M ack’ s t es t i m ony , w hi ch he a r gued w as t oo s pecul at i ve. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed R as hi d’ s chal l enge t o the quant i tydet erm i nat i on, s t at i ng that nothi ng he pr es ent ed pr ovi ded a ba s i s t o change i t s ear l i erdet erm i nat i on. R as hi d as ked th e c o u rt to im p o se a 2 4 0 -m o n th se n ten c e , arg u in g p rim a rilyth a t h e w a s “ sim ilarly si tuated” t o h i s brother Q uad re, w ho had recei ved that s entence athis B ooker r es ent enci ng. A pp. at4. T he G overnm entr es ponded thatR as hi d w as m or e cul pabl e than Q u a d re , an d th a t th e 3 0 -to 4 5 -y e a r se n ten c e s o th e r c o -d e f e n d a n ts h a d re c e iv e d a f ter th e ir B ookerr es ent enci ng r efl ect ed thei rgr eat ercul pabi l i ty . A ft err evi ew i ng the Sect i on 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, th e D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed R ash id to 2 4 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, m o re than elev en y ea rs l ess th an the s en tenc e p rev iou slyim p o sed an d b elow the a d v isory g u id e lin e ra n g e . R a sh id f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 2 II. W e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s , U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 568- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ( ci t i ng B ooker , 543 U . S. at 2 6 0 -6 1 ), a n d its d ru g q u a n tity f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Y

eung , 241 F. 3d 3 2 1 , 3 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). U n d er the S en tenc ing G u idelines , the b ase o ff en se lev el fo r a drug offe ns e i s det erm i ned bythe w ei ghtof the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance forw hi ch the5

d e f e n d a n t is h e ld a c c o u n tab le . See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1. T he det erm i nat i on of the drug qu anti tym ustbe sup po rt ed b ya prepo nd erance of the evidence, and such evidence “m ust pos s es s s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 203 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Miele , 989 F. 2d 659, 6 6 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )(i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n ar gui ng thatthe drug quant i tyforw hi ch he w as hel d r es pons i bl e w as bas ed ent i r el yupon the “s pecul at i ve” t es t i m onyof M ack, R as hi d ci t es t o L e e v . Ill in o is , 476 U .S . 5 3 0 , 5 4 5 (1 9 8 6 ), w h e re th e C o u rt sta ted th a t “a c o d e f e n d a n t’s c o n f

e ss io n is pr es um pt i vel yunr el i abl e as t o t he pas s ages det ai l i ng the def endant ’ s conductor c u lp a b ili ty. . . . ” H o w e v e r, in m a k in g th e q u a n tityd e ter m in a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d id notr el ys ol el yon M ack’ s t es t i m onybuton ext ens i ve othert es t i m onyw hi ch w as pr es ent ed attr i al and s ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on. T hi s i ncl uded the t es t i m onybyl aw enfor cementoffi cer s aboutthe ac t i vi tythat occurr ed atthe cornerw her e R as hi d w or ked, t es t i m onyfr om a drug us erw ho pur chas ed fr om R as hi d, and t es t i m onyfr om a drug s el l eraboutthe ac t i vi tythatw as goi ng on att he cornerw her e the J acobs br other s w or ked. T her e w as ampl e evi dence t o s uppor tthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe G overnm entpr oved bypr eponder ance of the evi dence thatJ acobs di s tr i but ed 11. 2 ki l ogr ams of cr ack c ocai ne. III . Ra s h i d n e x tc h a l l e n g e s h i s s e n t e n c e o f twe n tyy e a r s b e c a u s e h e r e c e i v e d th e s a me6

s ent ence as hi s br otherQ uadr e, w ho had a hi ghercr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory . A s w e not ed al r eady , R as hi d had i ni t i al l yar gued thathe w as s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi s br otherQ uadr e, and he a s ked the C our tt o i m pos e a c om par abl e, i f noti dent i cal , s ent ence . T he G overnm entr es ponds thatR as hi d w as m or e cul pabl e than Q uadr e as ther e i s evi dence th a t Q u a d re w o rk e d f

o r b o th M a rk a n d R a sh id . W e h a v e m a d e c lea r th a t d isp a ra te s e n te n c e s a re re a s o n a b le w h e re f a c ts o n th e re c o rd ju s tif yth e d is p a ri ty. U

ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 462 F. 3d 273, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n i t s di s cr et i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeci ded that the di s t i nct i on betw een Q uadr e’ s and R as hi d’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or i es di d notw arr anta l ow er s e n te n c e f

o r R a s h id b e c a u s e it w a s o u tw e ig h e d b yR a s h id ’s g re a te r d e g re e o f c u lp a b ility. W e have no bas i s t o di s agr ee. No rd o we a g r e e wi th Ra s h i d th a th i s s e n t e n c e wa s u n r e a s o n a b l e . Ra s h i d ’ s c r i me i nv olved t he d i stri bu t i on of crack in con certw i th h i s brothers over a peri od of y ears , acc om pani ed bypos s es s i on of a gun. T hes e ar e cr i m es forw hi ch C ongr es s and the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on have a dvocat ed s ubs t ant i al s ent ence s . M or eover , i n i m pos i ng se n ten c e , the D istric t C o u rt f o llo w e d th e re q u ire d se n ten c in g p ro to c o l b ytak in g in to con si derat i on the S ect i on 35 53 (a) fact ors. I V. Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .