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 3-3-2009 

# U SA v . M e ro 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 . 07-4634

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 . M e r o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1789. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1789H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf or * the East ern D i s tr i ctof

Penns yl vani a, s i t t i ng by des 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. 07- 4634 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES M ERO A p p e llan t. O n A p p e a l o f a D e c isio n o f th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f orthe D i s tr i ctof

N ew J er s ey ( C r i m . N o. 00- 216) D istric t Ju d g e : Je ro m e B . S im a n d le Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J anuary 13, 2009 B e fo re : S L O V IT E R a n d B A R R Y , C i r cui tJudges ,

a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . * Fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2009 OP I NI ON2.

P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge I. J ames M er o i s a per s i s t ent , butuns ucce s s f ul , cr i m i nal . B egi nni ng i n the mi d1980s , w hen M er o w as i n hi s tw ent i es , and cont i nui ng w i th negl i gi bl e per i ods of abat ement , he has comm i t t ed, and bee n convi ct ed of , a hos tof

of f ens es — f

or gery, bur gl ary, es cape , gr and l ar ceny, thef t , and f r aud, t o name buta f

ew . I n O ct ober2000, at the age of

f or ty- thr ee, M er o w as convi ct ed on f eder al cr edi t - car d f

r aud cha r ges and s e n te n c e d to fo rt y -e ig h t m o n th s o f i m p ri s o n m e n t a n d th re e y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . M e ro w a s re lea se d fro m p riso n in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 3 a n d th e re u p o n c o m m e n c e d h is th re e y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . T h is s e t th e s ta g e fo r h is c u rr e n t d if fi c u ltie s . I n N ovember2003, tw o m onths af t err el eas e f

r om pr i s on, M er o embar ked on an ext ens i ve aut o- l oan s cam outof a ca rdeal er s hi p i n A t l ant i c C i ty. L ocal l aw enf or cement o ff ic e rs a rr e s te d M e ro in M a rc h 2 0 0 4 , a n d h e a d m itte d to in v o lv e m e n t in th e lo a n fr a u d s . W hi l e i n cus t ody, M er o comm i t t ed a f ur theri dent i ty thef

tagai ns tone of

hi s aut o- l oan v ictim s, ste a lin g m o re th a n $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 fro m th a t in d iv id u a l’s c h e c k in g a c c o u n t. In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , the U n ited S tate s c h a rg e d M e ro w ith b a n k fra u d fo r h is ro le in the A t l ant i c C i ty cars cheme. M er o and the governm entdi s cus s ed a pl ea a gr eementf or h is c o o p e ra tio n a g a in st h is c o n fe d e ra tes a t th e a u to d e a ler sh ip , b u t M e ro e v e n tu a lly r ef us ed t o part i ci pat e, opt i ng i ns t ead t o pl ead gui l ty t o one countof w i r e f r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1343. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d M er o t o f i f ty- s even mont hs f

orthe w i r e f r aud convi ct i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen s ent ence d M er o t o a cons ecut i ve t erm ofT w enty- f ourm onths r epr es ent ed the s t atut ory m axi m um f orthi s vi ol at i on under 1 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e )( 3 ). 3. tw enty- f ourm onths f

orvi ol at i ng the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. 1 M ero chall eng es, as unreasonab l e un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s determ i nati on that the tw enty- four m on th sentence forviol at i on of supervi sed rel ease s houl d be cons ecut i ve t o, as oppos ed t o concurr entw i th, the f i f ty- s even mont h s ent ence f orw i r e f r aud. M er o has notchal l enged a ny otheras pectof ei thers ent ence . W e r evi ew th e s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f a s e n te n c e u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G a ll v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). II. In th e w ak e o f U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), fe d e ra l d istric t co u rts m us taddr es s the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes as advi s ory, and di s tr i ctj udges exer ci s e br oad d is c re tio n in im p o s in g s e n te n c e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. V

am pi r e N at i on , 451 F. 3d 189, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . D i s tr i ctcourt s i n t he Thi r d C i r cui tar e di r ect ed t o f ul f i l l thr ee req u ir em en ts t o en su re tha t a sen tenc e is reas o n ab le: fi rst , to co n side r th e d efe n d an t’ s a d v iso ry se n ten c in g ra n g e u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s; s e c o n d , to c o n sid e r a ll g ro u n d s p ro p e rly advanc ed by the part i es conce r ni ng the s ent ence , i ncl udi ng both r eques t s f ordepartur es a n d v a r i a n c e s ; a n d th i r d , t o c o n s i d e rf u l l y th e b r o a d r a n g e o f

f a c t o r s i n c l u d e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a s th e y a p p ly to th e p a rt ic u la r d e fe n d a n t. Id . T he s ame pr oces s and expec t at i ons appl y w hen a port i on of the s ent enci ng conce rns a vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed re le a s e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . O n appea l , af t er4.

exami ni ng the pr ocedur al pr opr i ety of the s ent enci ng, w e r evi ew the t ot al i ty of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s to d e te rm in e if th e c h a lle n g e d s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 . 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(a) perm i t s a di stri ctcou rtt o im po se a t erm of supervi sed rel ease on a def endantt o f

ol l ow i m pr i s onm ent . I f a def endantvi ol at es the court - i m pos ed pr ovi s i ons of

s upervi s ed r el eas e, § 3583( e) ( 3) perm i t s the courtt o r evoke s upervi s ed r el eas e and r equi r e the def endant“t o s erve i n pr i s on al l orpartof the t erm of

s upervi s ed r el eas e. . . . ” W hen a de f endanti s convi ct ed of

a cl as s C f

el ony, as her e, and l at ervi ol at es the t erm of

s upervi s ed r el eas e f

orthe convi ct i on, a maxi m um of tw o year s i m pr i s onm ent c a n b e im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r t h e v io la tio n . Id . T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes have e s t abl i s hed a c l as s i f i cat i on s ys t em forvi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e and ha ve as s i gned “G r ade B” t o the comm i s s i on of m os tnonv io len t, no n -d ru g fe lo n ies w h ile o n re lea se . U .S . S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 7B 1. 1( a) ( 2) . Subj ectt o any s t atut ory m axi m um , the G ui del i nes s ugges ta t erm of i m pr i s onm entof

21 - 27 m onths f

ora G r ade B vi ol at i on by a def endantl i ke M er o w i th a C ri m in a l H is to ry C a te g o ry o f V I. I d. § 7 B 1 .4 (a ). T h e G u id e lin e s fu rth e r a d v ise th a t: A ny t erm of

i m pri s onm enti m pos ed upon the r evoca t i on of pr obat i on or s upervi s ed r el eas e s hal l be or der ed t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y t o any s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entthatthe def endanti s s ervi ng, w hetherornotthe s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entbei ng s erved r es ul t ed f r om the conduc tthatis the bas i s of the re v o c a tio n o f p ro b a tio n o r s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . Id . § 7 B 1 .3 (f

). M e ro a rg u e d to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t, de sp ite th e g u id a n c e o f § 7 B 1 .3 (f), it sh o u ldM e ro d is c u s s e s o n e c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 4 8 2 F . 3 d 2 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), 2 w her e thi s courthel d t hata def endant ’ s heal th pr obl ems and s hor t ened l i f e expe ct ancy d id n o t, o f t h e m s e lv e s , re n d e r h is s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . Id . at 2 7 3 . M e ro sa y s h e “ is r el yi ng on W

at s on n o t .. . fo r w h a t o c c u rre d in th e T h ird C irc u it, b u t fo r w h a t o c c u rre d in th e D istric t C o u rt.” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 1 . B u t itis, o f c o u rse , this c o u rt’s d e c isio n th a t is contr ol l i ng. 5. i m pos e conc urr ents ent ence s f orthe new w i r e f

r aud convi ct i on and hi s vi ol at i on of s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e b e c a u s e h i s h e a l th p r o b l e ms a r e my r i a d a n d r a p i d l y wo r s e n i n g . He cont ends her e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on and made “a c l earerr orof j udgm ent , ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at4, by f ol l ow i ng § 7B 1. 3( f

) and i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve se n ten c e s. M e ro p o in ts to a n u m b e r o f c a se s in w h ich c o u rts o f a p p e a ls h a v e u p h e ld s ent ence s w hen def

endant s r ece i ved dow nw ar d departur es f orextr aor di nary m edi cal pr obl ems orphys i cal i m pai r m ent s . H e s ugges t s thatthes e ca s es s t and f orthe pr opos i t i on 2 th a t d e fe n d a n ts w ith s ig n if ic a n t p h y s ic a l m a la d ie s d e s e rv e le n ie n c y a s a m a tte r o f l a w . W e a re u n p e rsu a d e d b y M e ro ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n a n d fu rth e r fin d th a t M e ro ’s lin e o f a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g h e a lth c o n sid e ra tio n s is inap p o sit e to th e issu e b efo re u s. T h e re co rd d em o n str ates tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt conduct ed the s ent enci ng corr ect l y. I n deci di ng w hethert o i m pos e the s ent ence f or vi ol at i on of

s upervi s ed r el eas e cons ecut i vel y, the C our tcons i der ed the ar gum ent s of t he p a rties , the G u id e lin e s, a n d th e fa c to rs o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), an d a rriv e d a t a s ubs t ant i vel y r eas onabl e conc l us i on. T he f actthatcourt s of

appea l s have, on occa s i on, a ffirm e d d istric t co u rt d e c isio n s to g ra n t d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re s to d e fe n d a n ts in part i cul ar l y bad hea l th does not , i n any w ay, s ugges tthati ti s an abus e of di s cr et i on notto“A cons ecut i ve s ent ence her e of 24 m onths i s the appr opr i at e s ent ence f orm any 3 r eas ons . Fi r s ti s the s t ark r eci di vi s m thatM r . M er o demonstr at ed w hi l e comm i t t i ng a new crim e w h il e o n su p erv isi o n . S ec o n d is th e p att ern o f l ies an d d ec eito f M r. M ero tow ard hi s s upervi s i ng of

f i cer . T hi r d i s the nee d t o pr ot ects oci ety s o thatM r . M er o w i l l not r eturn s oon t o do m or e damage. ” Tra ns cr i ptof Sent enci ng H ear i ng of

N ovember28, 2007 at64. 6. g ran t som e fo rm o f req u ested lenien cy to an il l defe n d an t. H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt co n side red M ero ’s ero d ing h ea lth as w ell as h is othe r arg u m en ts, b u t f o u n d v ery cons i der abl e f

act or s w arr ant i ng the i m pos i t i on of a cons ecut i ve s ent ence f orthe vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. 3 A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.