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 2-11-2009 

# U SA v . P atrick L ucky 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 . 08-2596

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 . P atr ick Luck

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1878. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1878NOT 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- 2596 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. P AT RI CK L UC KY, Appel 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 . C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00198- 1 ) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as I . V anas ki e Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February5, 2009 Be f o r e : RE NDE L L a n d RO T H, C i r cui tJudges , and PA D O V A , * D is tr i ct Judge ( Fi l ed: February11, 2009)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

__________________ * H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .

### 2

P A D O V A , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge P a trick L u c k ya p p e a ls h is 2 3 0 -m o n th c u sto d ial s e n ten c e , im p o se d f o llo w in g h is e n tryo f a g u i l t yp l e a t o a i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g a r me d b a n k r o b b e r y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 1 1 3 (a ) a n d (d ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. U ni t ed St at es v. Sevi l l a, 541 F. 3d 226, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng G a ll v . U n ited S tate s, _

__ U .S . ___ , 1 2 8 S . C t. 58 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 )). “ In th is re g a rd , ‘o u r ro le is tw o -f o ld .’” Id . (q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . W is e , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )) . “W e m u st ‘ firsten su re tha t th e d istri ct co u rtco m m itted n o sign ifi ca n t pro ce d u ral error’ – fori ns t ance , by‘ fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a tely expl ai n the chos en s ent ence – i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G u id e lin e s ra n g e .’” Id . (q u o tin g G a ll, 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 ; W is e , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 7 )) . “Second, ‘ [i ] f w e det erm i ne thatt he di s t r i ctcour thas comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , w e then r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan abus e- ofdi s cr et i on s t andar d, r egar dl es s of w hetheri tfal l s w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. ’ ” I d. (qu o ti n g W ise, 5 1 5 F . 3 d at 21 8 ; ci ti n g G all , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 59 7 ).

### 3

A ppel l antm akes no as s ert i on t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ycal cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange orcomm i t t ed a s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or . R ather , he ar gues thatt he se n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le, b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to a p p ro p ria telyc o n sid e r: (1 ) th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c rim e , sp e c if

ica lly , tha t h e u se d o n ly a t oygun t o r ob t he bank, m i t i gat i ng the s er i ous nes s of the conduc tand i t s pot ent i al for harm ; and ( 2) A ppel l ant ’ s per s onal ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng chi l d abus e, pover t y , l ack of e d u c a t i o n a l a n d e mo t i o n a l s u p p o r t , s u b s t a n c e a b u s e , a n d d e mo n s t r a t i o n o f c o n t r i t i o n . He ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yfocus ed upon hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the c rim in a l co n d u c t o f

th e b a n k ro b b e ryo f

f e n se , an d g a v e n o m e a n in g f u l co n sid e ra tio n to h is a rg u m e n ts o n th e s ta tu to ry se n te n c in g f a c to rs . T he r ecor d of A ppel l ant ’ s s ent enci ng does nots uppor tthes e ar gum ent s . L ucky conce des thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tacknow l edged hi s m i t i gat i ng fac t or s , butas s ert s thatt he C our tgave them “no cons i der at i on . . . thatw as notot herw i s e i ncl uded i n t he gui del i nes c a lcu lu s.” L u c k yB r. at 1 8 -1 9 . T h is is c lea rlyin c o rre c t. A p p e llan t m a d e su b sta n tially sim ilar a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e c a re e r o f f e n d e r p ro v isio n in th e G u id e lin e s a n d in s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent s on t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfi r s tcal cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange, deny i ng L ucky ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e bec aus e hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d “i n no w ayover s t at e[d] t he s er i ous nes s of hi s cr i m i nal pas t ” and be caus e hi s pr i or f e lo n yc o n v ictio n s w e re “ q u a lify in g o f f e n se s a s a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r [ ] o f

su f f icie n t se v e rity th a t th e ys h o u ld p la c e h im in th is c a te g o ry.” A . 5 2 .

### 4

T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt th e n s e p a ra te ly co n s id e re d h is a rg u m e n ts u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 1 ). A ft erm aki ng i t s G ui del i nes cal cul at i on, the D i s t r i ctC our ts peci fi cal l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed Lucky ’ s s t atut or yar gum ent s r egar di ng the ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e, fi ndi ng that hi s cond uct cr eat ed a si tuati on “ri fe w i t h d ang er. ” A . 62 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so sp e c if ica llyre jec ted a s a m iti g a tin g f

a c to r th a t A p p e llan t u se d o n lya to yg u n to c o m m it the cr i m e, fi ndi ng t he bank t el l ercoul d nothave know i tw as n’ tr eal . I d. R egar di ng hi s per s onal char act er i s t i cs , the D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed thatA ppel l ant had an unf

or tunat e chi l dhood, butr ej ect ed thi s as a mi t i gat i ng fac t orbeca us e he a l s o had c h a n c e s to re h a b ilita te h im s e lf , a n d b e c a u s e h is c ri m in a l c o n d u c t e s c a la te d o v e r t im e . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A p p e llan t’s p e rso n a l ch a ra c ter istics p ro v id e d n o b a sis form i t i gat i on beca us e he de m ons t r at ed no r edee m i ng char act er i s t i cs . T he nee d t o pr ot ect the publ i c, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, w as bes ts erved byr emovi ng A ppel l ant“fr om so cietyfo r ne ar a s lon g as I c o u ld.” A . 6 3 . B ase d o n this co n side rati o n o f th e statuto ry fa ctors, th e D istri ct C o u rtd ec ided to im p o se a sen tenc e a t th e u p p er e n d o f th e a d v isory G u id e lin e s ra n g e . A 230- m ont h s ent ence forai di ng and abe t t i ng arm ed bank r obberybya def endant w i th tw entypr i orconvi ct i ons i s al s o nots ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. T he fi ndi ng that L uckyw as t he pr ot ot ypi cal car eeroffe nderi s i nar guabl e. T he r el at i ve s i gni fi canc e of A ppel l ant ’ s admi t t edl yt r oubl ed chi l dhood t o a s ent enci ng deci s i on fora cr i m e he comm i t t ed atage 36 w as w i t hi n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne. So t oo w as

### 5

th e re la tiv e s ig n if

ic a n c e o f th e f a c t th a t A p p e lla n t h a d u s e d a to yg u n to c o m m it th e c ri m e . L u c k yp o in ts to n o a p p a re n t ab u se o f th a t d isc re tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt m e a n in g f u lly cons i der ed al l of hi s ar gum ent s on the s t atut orys ent enci ng fac t or s and r ej ect ed them b e c a u se o f

A p p e llan t’s “ b lata n t d isre g a rd f o r th e law b yc o n tin u in g c rim in a l co n d u c t, es cal at i ng up t o arm ed bank r obbery . ” A . 63. A ppel l anthas s t at ed no good r eas on w hy th is d e ter m in a tio n sh o u ld b e d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l A FFIRM A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence .

______________