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 9-23-2009 

# U SA v . C arlo s Pe ralt a 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 . 08-4686

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 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 . C arlos P e r alt a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 618. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/618NOT 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- 4686 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. C A R L O S P E R A L T A , a/k/a R af ae l A . L o ra a /k /a C h a rlie C ar l os Per al t a, A ppel l ant ( D . C . N os . 07- cr - 00027- 001 & 07- cr - 00216- 001) O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 3- 07- cr - 00216- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. T hom as I . V anas ki e

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

Sept ember14, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2009) OP I NI ON S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . Ap p e l l a n tCa r l o s P e r a l t a a p p e a l s th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o g r a n th i m aT he PSR w as cal cul at ed underthe 2007 ver s i on of the 1 G uidel i nes. 2 s e n te n c e re d u c tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). W e w ill a f f ir m . I. I n J ul y2007, Per al t a pl ed gui l tyt o pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and i l l egal r e- entryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es by an aggr avat ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) . A tPer al t a’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng i n D ece m ber2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed, w i thoutobj ect i on, the Pr es ent ence R eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi ce. A ccordi ng t o the PS R , P eral t a w as r espon si ble for 114.22 gram s of co cai ne b ase and 99. 36 gr ams of coc ai ne pow der . U nderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes appl i cabl e att hat t i m e, P eral t a faced a base o ffen se l evel of t hirty -tw o b ased on this am ou nt of drugs. 1 Per al t a’ s i m m i gr at i on offe ns e had no i m pacton hi s offe ns e l evel . T he PSR r ecomm ended a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , and, combi ned w i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I , Per al t a ther efor e fa ced a G ui del i nes s ent ence of 87 t o 108 m ont hs im p riso n m e n t. A ft erhear i ng ar gum entfr om both part i es , the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of sixty -fo u r m o n ths im p ri so n m en t. T h e C o u rtrec o g n ized that, u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 8 5 (2 0 0 7 ), it coul d gr anta var i ance t o acc ountforthe cr ack- pow ders ent enci ng di s par i ty , and dec i ded3

thats uch a va r i ance w as appr opr i at e her e. T he C our tal s o not ed thatthe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on had i s s ued A m endment706 t o the G ui del i nes t o r educe the off ens e l evel for c e rta in c ra c k c o c a in e o f f e n se s b ytw o lev e ls. T h e C o u rt a n n o u n c e d th a t itw o u ld a p p ly s uch a r educt i on t o Per al t a’ s s ent ence even though i tw as out s i de the s cope of A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 . See U . S . S . G . A pp . C , A m end . 70 6 (N ov . 1, 20 07 ). T he C ou rtal so det erm i ned thatthe s ent ence bal ance d Per al t a’ s s t atus as a l ow - l evel deal erand hi s poor heal th agai ns thi s r ecor d of m ul t i pl e i l l egal entr i es i nt o the U ni t ed St at es and pr i ordrug off enses. P e ra lta d id n o t ap p e a l h is c o n v ictio n o r se n ten c e . H o w e v e r, P e ra lta s u b se q u e n tly m ov ed fo r a s entence reducti on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) , w hich perm i t s a di s tr i ctcourtt o r educe a s ent ence thatw as “bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas su b se q u e n tlyb e e n lo w e re d b yth e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n . . . , if su c h re d u c tio n is co n sist en t w ith ap p li ca b le po li cystat em en ts i ssu ed b ythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n . ” In s uppor tof hi s m ot i on, Per al t a r el i ed upon A m endment715, w hi ch w as m ade r etr oact i ve b yA m e n d m e n t 7 1 6 . See U . S. S. G . A pp. C . , A m ends . 715, 716 ( M ay1, 2008) . Pur s uant to A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 , the b a se o f f e n se lev e l f

o r P e ra lta’s d ru g o f

f e n se w o u ld b e re d u c e d to thi r ty , and he w oul d fac e an a m ended G ui del i nes r ange of s eventyt o ei ghty - s even mont hs im p ri s o n m e n t. P e ra lta s e e k s a n e w s e n te n c e o f f if ty-tw o m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t, i.e ., a var i ance fr om the amended G ui del i nes r ange e qui val entt o the var i ance gr ant ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tbel ow hi s or i gi nal G ui del i nes r ange. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at9.Th e Di s tr i c t Co u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 2 § § 3 2 3 1 a n d 3 5 8 2 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 91 a n d r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s “ d e c i s i o n w h e th e r t o g r a n to rd e n y a defe ndant ’ s m ot i on t o r educe s ent ence und er§ 3852( c) ( 2) for abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. M

at eo , 56 0 F. 3d 152, 154 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 4 T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n f o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n . It h e ld th a t P e ra lta “w as gi ven the bene fi tof the tw o l evel r educt i on author i zed byA m endment715; the s e n te n c e w a s b e lo w th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e ra n g e e v e n a f te r t h e tw o le v e l r e d u c tio n . . . ; and the C our tfi nds [Per al t a] i s notel i gi bl e foranyaddi t i onal r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence as it alre a d yto o k in to a c c o u n t th e c ra c k c o c a in e a m e n d m e n ts.” A p p . at 3 . P e ra lta tim e ly appea l ed. 2 II. A l though hi s or i gi nal s ent ence “al r eadyt ook i nt o acc ountthe cr ack c ocai ne am en d m en ts, ” P era lt a sti ll arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n . A p p . a t 3 . W e d is a g re e . A s not ed above , the D i s tr i ctC our tant i ci pat ed A m endment715 and appl i ed a tw ol evel r educt i on t o t he off ens e l evel forPer al t a’ s drug offe ns e. T hus , Per al t a, i n es s ence , a lre a d yre c e iv e d th e b e n e f it o f A m e n d m e n t 7 1 5 in h is o rig in a l se n ten c e . T h a t is a ll P e ra lta is e n title d to u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). See U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( b) ( 1) ( “I n det erm i ni ng w hether , and t o w hatext ent , a r educt i on i n the def endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm entunder 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a n d th is p o licysta tem e n t is w a rra n ted . . . the c o u rt sh a ll su b stitu teonl ythe [a ppl i cabl e] amendm ent s . . . forthe corr es pondi ng gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons that

w e re a p p lie d w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t w a s s e n te n c e d . . . .” ). F u rth e r, th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted P e ra lta a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e p u rsu a n t to B ookerand K i m br ough and s ent ence d hi m t o s i xty - fourm onths i m pr i s onm ent , i . e. , bel ow b o th th e o rig in a l an d a m e n d e d G u id e lin e s ra n g e s. U n d e r th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, “ if the or i gi nal t erm of i m pr i s onm entcons t i tut ed a non- gui del i ne s ent ence det erm i ned pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and [ B ooker ] , a furtherr educt i on gener al l yw oul d notbe a p p ro p ria te.” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (b )(2 )(B ). C o n tra ryto P e ra lta’s a rg u m e n ts to th is c o u rt, “[n] othi ng i n B ookerpurpor t ed t o obvi at e the congr es s i onal di r ect i ve i n § 3582( c) ( 2) t hat a s ent ence r educt i on pur s uantt o t hats ect i on be cons i s t entw i th Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pol i cys t at ement s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 5 6 4 F . 3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in rejec ti n g P era lt a’s r eques tfora s ent ence r educt i on. Per al t a has al r eadyr ece i ved the bene fi tof A m endment 7 1 5 , an d , in a n yc a se , the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s m a k e c lea r th a t a s e n ten c e re d u c tio n is gener al l ynotappr opr i at e w her e a de fenda nt , l i ke Per al t a, r ece i ved a dow nw ar d var i ance i n hi s orheror i gi nal s ent ence . III . Forthe above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng a s ent ence r educt i on.