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 4-16-2010 

# U SA v . Pete r E ve rett 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 . 09-3902

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 . P e t e r E ve r e tt " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1491. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1491T he H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 09- 3902

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ee, v. PETE R EV ERETT, a /k /a H a i l e y, A p p e llan t.

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N um ber : 07- cr - 00340) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

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

A pr i l 15, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a n d P OL L AK, D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010)2 ____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . P eter E v ere ttch all en g es th e re aso n ab lene ss o f h is sen tenc e a n d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n f

o ra mi t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r ecountonl ythe es s ent i al fac t s . I n Sept ember 2 0 0 7 , P e ter E v e re tt an d n in e tee n o th e rs w e re in d icte d f o r c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te in exce s s of one ki l ogr am of her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. E ver ettal s o w as char ged w i th pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e and di s tr i but i on of her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . I n A pr i l 2009, E ver ettpl eade d gui l tyt o the cons pi r acychar ge and the G ov ernm ent agr eed to drop the ot her charges. T he P res entence Invest i gati on R epo rt(PS R ) foun d thatE veret t ’s base of fense lev e l w a s 2 6 . It rec o m m e n d e d d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re s o f tw o -le v e ls f

o r m e e tin g th e sa f

e ty val ve r equi r ement s pur s uantt o § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and thr eel evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i tyunder§ 3E 1. 1( a) and ( b) , fora t ot al offe ns e l evel o f 2 1 . In A u g u st 2 0 0 9 , af ter re v iew in g th e P S R , E v e re tt’s c o u n se l f iled a m o tio n to em p loya m it igation sp ec ial istto as sistw ith sen tenc ing p rep ara ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt su m m a rilyd ism iss e d th e m o tio n b e c a u se th e c a se w a s n o t u n u su a l.T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 1 juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 3 T he G overnm entm oved for , and the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed, an addi t i onal tw ol evel dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance pur s uantt o U SSG § 5K 1. 1. I n the fin al an aly sis, E v ere tt ’s of fe n se lev el w as 1 9 an d h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryw as I, l eadi ng t o an advi s oryG ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange of 30- 37 m onths . T he D i s tr i ct C our ts ent ence d E ver ettt o 30 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . E ver ettt i m el yappea l ed. 1 II. E v ere ttraises se v era l cha ll en g es to h is sen tenc e. F ir st, h e c lai m s the D istri ct C o u rt c o m m i t t e d p r o c e d u r a l e r r o rb y i g n o r i n g h i s h i s t o ry a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, E ver ett ’ s couns el and w i tnes s es t ol d the D i s tr i ctC our tthat : thi s w as hi s fi r s toffe ns e, he m ade a m i s t ake, he now had a f ami l y , he w as gai nful l yempl oy ed, and he w oul d not comm i tanothercr i m e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr es ponded thati tw oul d “t ake i nt o acc ountt he v e ryth in g s th a t [ E v e re tt’s c o u n se l] a d d re ss e d ” b u t n o ted th a t all tw e n tyc o -d e f e n d a n ts have f ami l i es . J A 32- 33. N earthe end of i t s anal y s i s , the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o expl ai ned th a t alth o u g h it d isa g re e d w ith E v e re tt’s f a m ilym e m b e rs’ p lea s f o r m in im a l jail tim e , it w a s d o in g s o in g o o d f

a ith . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to s a ym o re . See U ni t ed S ta tes v . R ita , 551 U . S. 338, 356- 57 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 568 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c).4

E v e re tt n e x t cla im s th e D istric t C o u rt ig n o re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) re q u ire m e n t to av o id se n tenc ing d ispa ri ti es b ec au se itco n tr asted h is co n d u ct w ith o thers w h o w ere sen tenc ed fo r dissim il ar c o n d u ct i n the c ase , instead o f c o m p aring h im to o thers w h o w ere s e n te n c e d f

o r t h e s a m e c o n d u c t. See 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(6) (req u ir ing a se n tenc ing co u rt to c o n sid e r “ th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w ith s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho had bee n found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ”) . A tone poi nt , the D i s tr i ct C our tcompar ed al l tw entyco- defe ndant s bas ed on thei rr el at i ve l evel s of cul pabi l i tyand thei rfami l yt i es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o compar ed Ever ettt o the mostanal ogous cod e f e n d a n t— D a n iel T o rre s. T o rre s h a d a lo w e r b a se G u id e lin e s ra n g e b u t su b sta n tially sim il ar p arti cipa ti o n in the co n sp ir ac yan d also rec eive d a tw o -l ev el do w n w ard d ep arture for subst anti al assi st ance. B ecause o f t heirsi m i l ari t i es, the D i stri ctC ou rtdeem ed itj ust t o s ent ence E ver ettt o t he s ame am ountof pr i s on t i m e as T orr es — 30 m onths . T hi s w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. A l though w e have s t at ed that§ 3553( a) ( 6) pr om ot es a conc ern for“nat i onal u n if o rm ity in s e n te n c in g ra th e r t h a n u n if o rm ity a m o n g c o -d e f

e n d a n ts in th e s a m e c a s e ,” w e al s o not ed thati t“does notpr ohi bi t ” a s ent enci ng courtfr om cons i der i ng s ent enci ng d is p a ri tie s a m o n g c o -d e f e n d a n ts . U

ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H e re , the D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d c o -d e f e n d a n t d isp a rities b a se d o n p e rm iss ib le fac t or s , i ncl udi ng: fami l yconnec t i ons , ext entof coope r at i on w i th author i t i es and c u lp a b ility in th e c ri m in a l c o n s p ir a c y . See i d. ( al l ow i ng co- defe ndantcompar i s ons as5

l on g as t he “f

act ors consi dered b ythe sentenci ng cou rtare noti nco nsi st ent w i th those l i s t ed i n § 3553( a) and ar e l ogi cal l yappl i ed t o the def endant ’ s ci r cumst ance s ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our teven a gr eed w i th E ver ettthat§ 3553( a) does notm andat e par i tyamong codefe ndant s , butexpl ai ned that“the obj ectof the s ent enci ng gui del i nes [i s ] t o ens ur e as m uch par i tyi n s ent enci ng as pos s i bl e. ” J A 37. F in a lly, E v e re tt c la im s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt tr e a te d th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry. W e fi nd no s uppor ti n t he r ecor d forthi s as s ert i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d E ver ettt o 30 m o n ths b ase d o n it s sen se o f f airne ss an d p arity . A t sen tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence aft eri thear d E ver ett ’ s couns el s t at e thatthe G ui del i nes w er e advi s ory( J A 37) and hea r d the pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum entthata w i thi nG ui del i nes s ent ence w oul d be r eas onabl e ( J A 34- 36) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s comm enton the G ui del i nes ’ purpos e— t o i ncr eas e the s ens e of j us t i ce i n fede r al s ent enci ng byhavi ng al l fede r al court s acr os s the countr ycons i derthe s ame se nt enci ng fac t or s , i ncl udi ng the amount of drugs attr i but abl e t o a def endant

— does nots ugges t , m uch l es s es t abl i s h, that th e D istric t C o u rt w a s la b o rin g u n d e r a m isa p p re h e n sio n th a t th e G u id e lin e s a re still m andat oryy ear s aft erthe Supr eme C our t ’ s l andmar k deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in se n ten c in g E v e re tt.6 III . E ver ettal s o cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi m a mi t i gat i on s peci al i s t . B eca us e he w as “s afe ty - val ve el i gi bl e” unde r18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) and had un i qu e ci rcum st ances, E veret ti nsi st s he nee ded a m i t i gati on speci al i stt o p res ent hi s case in th e m o st p e rsu a siv e lig h t. E ver ettw as notent i t l ed t o a mi t i gat i on s peci al i s t , how ever , beca us e he di d not d e m o n stra te th a t th e sp e c ialist w a s “ n e c e ss a ry .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 0 0 6 A (e ). “T h e d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n ya m o tio n [ f o r e x p e n se s to h ire a m iti g a tio n sp e c ialist] is o n e c o m m itt e d to the di s cr et i on of the di s tr i ctcourt , and a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on w i l l be di s turbed on appea l onl yi f i tcons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R om an , 121 F. 3d 1 3 6 , 1 4 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e o n lya rg u m e n ts p re se n ted b e lo w f o r n e c e ss ityw e re to ens ur e ( 1) compl i ance w i th t he s t at ed purpos e of the “s afe tyval ve” pr ovi s i on and ( 2) as s i s t ance fr om an expe r ti n m att er s r el at ed t o § 3553( a) . A s the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned i n it s orderden y i ng the m oti on , tho se tw o aspec t s show “no thing un usual abou tthis case to w arran t gran ti n g the m o ti o n . ” T h is find ing w as n o t an a b u se o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s cr et i on. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.