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 2-9-2009 

# U SA v . M a di son 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 . 06-5172

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M a d i s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1904. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1904NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 . 06- 5172 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J AM E S M ADI S ON A ppel l ant O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 06- cr - 00390) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J uan R . Sanchez Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February3, 2009 B E F O R E : M c K E E a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ,

and I R E N A S, * D is tr i ct Judge O pi ni on Fi l ed: February9, 2009

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H on. J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antJ ames M adi s on pl ed gui l tyt o one countof bank f r aud pur s uantt o a pl ea agr eement . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr oper l ycal cul at ed hi s advi s or ySent enci ng G ui del i nes ran g e to b e 3 7 -46 m o n ths. A t th e c lose o f th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d M adi s on t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 60 m ont hs t o comm ence aft ers ervi ce of a s t at e s ent ence he w as s ervi ng fora di ffe r entcr i m e. I n t hi s appea l , M adi s on ur ges t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed as a mat t erof l aw by( 1)

“ d e p a rtin g u p w a rd ” f

ro m th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e ; (2 ) f a ili n g to p ro v id e a d v a n c e n o tice o f its i nt entt o s o depart ; and ( 3) deny i ng hi s r eques tt o have hi s fede r al s ent ence run c o n c u r r e n t l ywi t h h i s s t a t e o n e . W e c o n s i d e re a c h i n tu r n a n d wi l l a f f i r m. I . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfol l ow ed the appl i cabl e pr ece dent . I tpr oper l ycal cul at ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, r ecogni zed them as a dvi s or y , cons i der ed ea ch of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and dec i ded upon a s ent ence t hati texpr es s l yfound t o be “s uffi ci entbut n o t g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ryto re f lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , d e ter c rim in a l co n d u c t, p ro tec t th e p u b lic f

ro m [ th e d e f

e n d a n t’s] c o n d u c t an d p ro v id e [ h im ] w ith a n o p p o rtu n ity f o r re h a b ili tatio n .” A p p . at 5 7 . T h e C o u rt a lso e x p lain e d o n th e re c o rd h o w it rea c h e d its d e c isio n , as w e ll as w h yit w a s u n p e rsu a d e d b yth e a rg u m e n ts it d id n o t ac c e p t. T her e w as no departur e undert he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . R ather , t he D i s t r i ct C our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on t o varyfr om t he advi s or yr ange ba s ed upon § 3553( a)3

fac t or s . A s t he C our texpl ai ned, i tw as conce r ned aboutt he fa ctt hatM adi s on w as 57 y ear s ol d, had a thi r t y - y earcr i m i nal r ecor d i ncl udi ng 10 pr i orconvi ct i ons , and had not b ee n at all d eterred b ythe p u n ishm en ts prev iou slyim p o sed . M o reo v er, th e C o u rt expl ai ned thati tw as conce r ned aboutt he natur e and s er i ous nes s , as w el l as t he fr equenc y of M adi s on’ s offe ns es , s t r es s i ng notonl yt he dur at i on and ext entof the fr aud, butal s o t he h a rm f u l im p a c t o n th e v ic tim s o f h is u s e o f

s to le n id e n tif

ic a tio n a n d p e rs o n a l in f o rm a tio n . I n s hor t , i ti s appar entfr om t he r ecor d t hatw hatM adi s on r efe r s t o as t he “una s s oci at ed conce r ns ” gi vi ng r i s e t o t he appr opr i at e upw ar d var i ance w er e pr eci s el yt he conc erns on w h ich § 3 5 5 3 (a ) re q u ire d th e C o u rt to f o c u s. G iv e n th a t th e re w a s a m p le a n d re liab le e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th o se c o n c e rn s, w e f in d th e D istric t C o u rt’s v a ria n c e to b e w e ll w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on. II. M adi s on i ns i s t s t hatt he fa i l ur e of the C our tt o pr ovi de adva nce not i ce of an i nt ent to im p o s e a s e n te n c e a b o v e th e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e v io la te d F e d . R . C ri m . P . 3 2 . Such not i ce i s notr equi r ed, how ever , i n advanc e of di s cr et i onaryvar i ance s bas ed on § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . I r iz ar r y v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 1 9 8 , 2 2 0 8 (20 0 8 ).

III . U nder18 U . S. C . § 3584, m ul t i pl e t erm s of i m pr i s onm entm aybe i m pos ed ei t her co n sec u ti v elyo r co n cu rren tl y , an d the D istri ct C o u rtm u st co n side r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors i n m aki ng t hi s det erm i nat i on. Si m i l ar l yt he pol i cys t at ementi n U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 3( c)M adi s on i ns i s t s fort he fi r s tt i m e bef or e us t hathi s s t at e convi ct i on w as bas ed on 1 “r el evantconduct ” under§ 7B 1. 3 and s houl d have be en or der ed t o run concurr ent l yunder § 5G 1. 3( b) . H ow ever , t he r ecor d pr ovi des no bas i s fort hi s cont ent i on and the pr es ent ence r epor tr efl ect s t hatt he s t at e convi ct i on w as nott r eat ed as a r el at ed ca s e or r el evantconducti n t he ca l cul at i on of the G ui del i nes r ange. 4 pr ovi des t hata s ent ence m aybe i m pos ed conc ur r ent l y , par t i al l yconcurr ent l y , or cons ecut i vel yt o an undi s char ged s ent ence i n or der“t o achi eve a r eas onabl e puni s hm ent fort he i ns t antoffe ns e. ” Thi s deci s i on i s entrus t ed t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ll oyd , 4 6 9 F .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sa in tville , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our ther e made expl i ci tr efe r ence t o G ui del i nes § 5G 1. 3( c) , t hus re c o g n izin g its d isc re tio n to im p o se a c o n se c u tiv e o r a c o n c u rre n t se n ten c e . W h ile it d id n o t ex p re ss lytie its d e c isio n o n th a t m a tter to a se p a ra te s tate m e n t o f ra tio n a le, it is cry s t al cl earfr om r eadi ng t he r ecor d t hati t s deci s i on i n favorof a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence w as bas ed on the s ame § 3553( a) fac t or s t hatcaus ed i tt o s ent ence above the G ui del i nes r ange – M adi s on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand r eci di vi s m , t he natur e and s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e, and the nee d fordet err ence and puni s hm ent . O nce a gai n, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. 1 I V. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.