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 6-25-2009 

# U SA v . D a vid M c C le a ve 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 . 08-3523

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_2009

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 2009 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 . D a vid M c C le a

ve " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1128. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1128T he H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge forthe U ni t ed St at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT 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. 08- 3523 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DAVI D M c CL E AVE a/k/ a B oochi e, AP P E L 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 D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 07- cr - 01009- 001 D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e Jose L . L i nares Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 23, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d R E S T A N I, Judge * ( Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . 

### § 3231, and thi s C our thas 1 ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 2 A ppel l antD avi d M cC l eave chal l enges the r eas onabl enes s of hi s t erm of im p riso n m e n t. M c C lea v e so ld 3 .7 g ra m s o f h e ro in in A p ril 2 0 0 7 . H e p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f

p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te h e ro in , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . 

### § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T hough t he bas e off ens e l evel forthe cha r ge w as tw el ve, M cC l eave had s ever al pr i ordrug di s t r i but i on convi ct i ons thatw arr ant ed a c ar eeroffe nder enhanc ementt hati ncr eas ed the off ens e l evel t o thi r t y - t w o. W i t h a thr ee poi ntadj us t m ent f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty , h is to tal o f f e n se lev e l w a s tw e n ty -n in e . B e c a u se o f h is s t atus as a ca r eeroffe nder , M cC l eave ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as C at egoryV I . T he S en tenc ing G u ideline ra n g e f o r i n d ividu als w ith this of fe n se lev el an d crim inal h ist o ry ca tego ryis 15 1 to 1 8 8 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t. O n A u g u st 13 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt s e n te n c e d M c C le a v e to a 1 5 1 -m o n th te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. T his C ou rtrevi ew s a di stri ctcou rt ’s sent ence f i rs tfor procedu ral reas on ableness, t hen for subst anti ve reasonab l eness. U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 543 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d 1 C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). I n d o in g s o , w e a p p ly th e “ a b u s e o f d is c re tio n ” s ta n d a rd . U ni t ed Stat es v. W ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 217–18 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . “[A ] di s t r i ctcour tw i l l be hel d t o have abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i f i t s deci s i on w as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fac tual concl us i on or an err oneous l egal concl us i on. ” Id . at 2 1 7 . B e f o re th is C o u rt, M c C lea v e d o e s n o t cla im an yerro r i n the c alcu lat ion o f th at ran g e. T h is w eigh s in f av o r of h is sen tenc e’s3

p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s . See G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 586, 591 (2 0 0 7 ) (“ [ W ]h e n a d istric t ju d g e ’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n in a p a rticu lar c a se a c c o rd s w ith t he s ent ence t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on deems a ppr opr i at e ‘ i n t he mi ne ru n o f c a s e s ,’ t h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls m a yp re s u m e th a t th e s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le .” ). N e v e rth e les s, M c C lea v e a rg u e s th a t h is te rm o f im p riso n m e n t w a s u n re a so n a b le beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence “bas ed, i n es s ence , upon” the Sent enci ng G ui del i ne r ange w i t houtm eani ngful and “pa r t i cul ar i zed c ons i der at i on of the mi t i gat i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Pr i ort o hi s s ent enci ng, M cC l eave ar gued thata numberof fac t or s s uppor t ed a be l ow - gui del i nes s ent ence . H e ar gued that : ( 1) the ca r eeroffe nder cl as s i fi cat i on r es ul t ed i n a t en- fol d i ncr eas e i n hi s s ent enci ng r ange; ( 2) the nonvi ol ent n ature o f th e o ff

en se, as w ell as th e sm all q u an ti tyo f d rug s, justi fied a d o w n w ard var i ance ; ( 3) hi s l ack of educa t i on and expe r i ence contr i but ed t o hi s i nvol vementi n t he drug t r ade be gi nni ng atage tw enty ; ( 4) he s uffe r ed fr om drug addi ct i on; and ( 5) he had a s u p p o r t i v e f

a mi l y , i n c l u d i n g a wi f

e a n d c h i l d r e n wh o r e l i e d o n h i m. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , thi s C our ts t at ed that“a r ot e s t at ementof the § 3553( a) fac t or s s houl d nots uffi ce i f ats ent enci ng ei t herthe defe ndantort he pr os ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es ‘ a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t . ’ ” I d. at 329 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . N onethel es s , the “c our tneed notdi s cus s everyar gum entm ade by a l i t i gant , ” norm us ti t“di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” I d. A ppl y i ng a def

er ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , thi s C our ti ns t ead l ooks t o w hetherthe § 3553( a) fac t or s “w er e r eas onabl yappl i ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e” a nd w hether4

“the di s t r i ctj udge i m pos ed the s ent ence . . . forr eas ons thatar e l ogi cal and cons i s t ent w i t h t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) . ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm or e than ade quat el ycons i der ed the i s s ues r ai s ed b yM cC leav e. T h e re co rd re flec ts th at th e D istri ct C o u rtac k n o w ledg ed rec eivin g let ters fr om M cC l eave ’ s fami l y , i ndi cat ed thati thad under l i ned ar eas of part i cul ari nt er es tt o t he C our t , and s t at ed thati tw oul d t ake the l et t er s i nt o cons i der at i on. I tdemonstr at ed aw ar enes s of M cC l eave ’ s per s onal ci r cumst ance s , r eci t i ng the fa ctthathe had a w i fe a nd fourchi l dr en, had notcompl et ed hi gh s chool , and had a hi s t oryof drug abus e. A ft er M cC leav e’s c o u n sel ask ed the C o u rt“u n d er the circu m stan ce s o f th is case , . . . to ign o re t he ca r eeroffe nders t atus and do s om ethi ng el s e bec aus e thi s cl i enti s di ffe r ent , ” the C our tas ked couns el t o el abor at e on how M cC l eave w as di ffe r ent . M cC l eave ’ s couns el t hen di s cus s ed i n m or e depth M cC l eave ’ s l ack of educa t i on and expe r i ence w hen he beca m e i nvol ved i n t he drug t r ade, t hathe w as nota s ubs t ant i al pl ay eri n t he l ocal drug tr a d e , h is n e e d f

o r d ru g re h a b ilita tio n , a n d th e h a rd s h ip o f h is in c a rc e ra tio n o n h is f a m ily. A t v a ri o u s p o in ts , th e C o u rt in te rj e c te d a n d a s k e d f o r m o re in f

o rm a tio n o r c la ri f

ic a tio n . A f ter h e a rin g f

ro m th e G o v e rn m e n t an d M c C lea v e , w h o e x p re ss e d re m o rse f o r h is cr i m e, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatM cC l eave ’ s s t at ementw as i m por t antand thati tw as “moved byt he s uppor tt hatt he fa m i l yhas gi ven M r . M cC l eave . ” The C our tthen di s cus s ed, how ever , t he i m pactof drugs on chi l dr en and c om m uni t i es . I tal s o di s cus s ed M cC l eave ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , i ncl udi ng an arr es tw hi l e aw ai t i ng s ent enci ng on th e p re se n t o f

f e n se . In th e C o u rt’s v iew , this d e m o n stra ted th a t M c C lea v e w a s n o t tru ly5

r emors eful , as he had nott aken s t eps t o l ead a di ffe r entl i fes t y l e, and w arr ant ed a s ent ence of 188 m ont hs . N onethel es s , aft eracknow l edgi ng the advi s orynatur e of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he C our ts t at ed thatthe r ange w as r eas onabl e i n t hi s cas e. I tt hen op t ed fo r the 1 51 -m on t h sentence on the low er end o f t he rang e, w hich i tbeli eved best b a lan c e d th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e c rim e a n d re sp e c t f o r th e law w ith M c C lea v e ’s f a m ily su p p o rt, h is a g e , an d th e o th e r f a c to rs d isc u ss e d b yM c C lea v e a n d h is c o u n se l. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ext ens i ve di al ogue w i t h M cC l eave and hi s couns el demonstr at es i t s aw ar enes s of M cC l eave ’ s per s onal ci r cumst ance s . T he C our tcons i der ed e a c h o f th e is s u e s ra is e d b yM c C le a v e a n d f a c to re d th e m in to th e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. A s a r es ul t , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a 151 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entw as not pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e. N orw as M cC l eave ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm ents ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. “[I ] f the d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyso u n d , w e w ill a f f irm it u n les s n o re a so n a b le s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpart i cul ardefe ndantfor t he r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 568 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . A s di s cus s ed above , the D i s t r i ctC our tcar eful l ycons i der ed the 

### § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d b a lan c e d th o se a g a in st th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o f f e n se a n d th e n e e d to pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw . I tconcl uded thata t erm of i m pr i s onm entatthe bot t om of th e g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s re a s o n a b le a n d a p p ro p ri a te , a n d w e a g re e . F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n .