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
10-28-2010 

# U S A v . E lt on S p e nce r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1738

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Elt on S pe nc e r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 375. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/375NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 1738

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. EL TON S P ENCE R, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt

f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f

N e w J e r s e y ( D
. C
. N o. 1- 07- cr - 00236- 001 ) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e R enee M
. B um b

Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober 26, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, S L O V ITE R , and R E N D E L L , C i rcui t Judg es. ( Fi l ed: O ct ober 28, 2010)

______ OP I NI ONT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 18 U
. S. C
. § 374 2 (a) and 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1
. 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge
. A p p ellan t E lto n S p en cer p lead edg u ilty to p o ssessio n w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te
c oc a i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a )( 1), ( b)(1)( C). The Distri ct Co urt s ente nced hi m t o 140 m onths i m

pr i s onm e nt , the bott om

of the gui de l i ne r ange of 140 t o 175
m o n th s. S p en cer ap p eals th at sen ten ce, w h ich w e rev iew f o r reaso n ab len ess. See 1 Un ited States v. To mko , 5 6 2 F
. 3 d5 5 8 , 5 6 7 ( 3 dC i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. W e w i l l a f f i rm. Spe nc e r fi r s t a s s e rt s the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d pr oc e dur a l l y

by “ not gi vi ng

‘ m e ani ngful c ons i de r at i on’ t o the fa c t that the e vi de nc e s tr ongl y

favor e d as e nt e nc i ng g o al o f reh ab ilitatio n o v er im

p riso n m en t.” A p p ellan t’s B r. at 1 3 . B ecau se h e raises th is ch allen g e f

o r th e f irst tim e o n ap p eal, w e rev iew f o r p lain erro r. See Unite d States v . Vaz que z -Le bron , 5 8 2 F .3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ).

“ [A] s e nt e nc e m

us t r e fl e c t adi s tr i c t c ourt ’ s m e ani ngful c ons i de r at i on of the f acto rs set f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a).” Un ited States v. Less ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 203 (3d C ir . 200 7). The se ct ions of the s tatute to wh ic h S pencer r efers re qu ir e a Distri ct Court t o c ons i de r

the “ nat ur e and c i r c um s t anc e s of the offe ns e and the hi s t ory and
c har a c t e r i s t i c s of the de fe ndant ” a s we l l a s the ne e d for as e nt e nc e that

“ pr ovi de [s ] the d ef en d an t . . . co rrectio n al treatm en t inth e m o st ef f ectiv e m an n er[ .] ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1 ), (a)(2 )(D ).W e not e t he G over nm ent as s er t s cor r ect l y t hat t he pr evi ous 2 s ent enci ng di s par i t y for off enses i nvol vi ng cr ack c ocai ne and coca i ne pow der di d not aff ectSpenc e r ’ s s e n t enci ng r ange unde r t he G u idelines
. S p e n c e r w as p rop erlyd ee m ed a “ ca ree r of fe n d er” un der U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4B 1. 1, and t he PS R t herefore cal culat ed hi s base o f f e n s e le v e l at 3 2
. See U

ni t ed St at es v. Mat eo , 560 F. 3d 152, 154- 5 5 (2 0 0 9 ). T o t he ext ent Spencerr el i es on U n ited S ta tes v . M

a n ze lla , 3 4 7 5 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 -5 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) , th a t ca se is in a p p o site beca us e t her e i s no evi dence her e t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t i m pr i s oned Spencers ol el y t o pr ovi de r ehabi l i t at i on. 3 At se ntenci ng , the Distri ct Co urt e xp la ined that

Sp ence r’ s off

ense was “ very
s e r i ous [, ] .
. . i nvol v[i ng] as i gni fi c ant am ount of dr ugs , ” and a l s o not e d that

Spe nc e r ha d be gun h i s l i fe of

c r i m e a s aju ve ni l e and“ c on t i nu e d o n a l m os t pr e di c t abl y

e ve ry two y ears or so . . . . ” App . at 89. As no te d in the Pres ente nce Report ( “PSR ”) , Spencer was also a career o f

f en d er an dp o ssessedo th er co n tro lledsub stan ces at th e tim e o f h is
o f f e n s e . O u r

r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r dd e m o n s tr at e s th at th e D i s tr i c t

C o u rt m e an i n g f

u l l y 2
co n sid eredth e f

acto rs set f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). See Rit a v. Unite d States , 551 U. S. 338, 356 ( 2007) ( “ The s e nt e nc i ng judge s houl d s e t forth e nough t o s at i s fy

the
a ppe l l at e c ourt

that he ha s c ons i de r e d the part i e s ’ ar gum e nt s and ha s ar e a s one d ba s i s for
e xe r c i s i ng hi s own l e ga l de c i s i onm aki ng author i ty . ” )
. Ac c or di ngl y , i t di d not 3 procedurall y

er r. Spe nc e r ne xt a s s e rt s that

the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d s ubs t ant i ve l y

by gi vi ng undue consider at ion to the go al s of d et er re nce andre tr ibution. We re view this chal le ng e for anI n hi s Pr o Se Suppl e m e n t a l Br i e f, Spe nc e r c ont e s t s the 4 Di s tr i c t Court ’ s jur i s di c t i on and r a i s e s othe r c ha l l e nge s . I n fa i l i ng t o r a i s e the i ssu es b efor e hi s pl e a , Spe nc e r wa i ve d any

c ha l l e nge to im p ro p er v en u e, lacko f

p erso n al j u risd ictio n , a n d d e f ects in inst it uting the prosec ution. Fed. R. Crim . P. 12(b)(3 ), (e ). Sp ence r’ s other

ar gu m ents al so la ck m er it . He c o n te nd s that dist ri ct courts la ck subj ec t- m atte r j uri s di c t i on ov e r c r i m i na lm at

t er s 4 ab u se o f d iscretio n , s eeGa ll

v. Un ited States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ); To mko , 562 F. 3d
at 564- 67, gi vi ng “ gr e at

de fe r e nc e ” t o the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s de t e rm i nat i on, Less ner , 498 F. 3d at 204. I n doi ng s o, we a s k whe the r the fi na l s e nt e nc e “ wa s pr e m i s e d upon approp ri at e andju dici ou s c on si derati on of the r el evant fact ors. ” I

d. ( i nt e rna l quot at i on
m ar ks om itte d). As al re ady

st at ed, the Distri ct

Co urt c hara ct er iz ed Sp ence r’ s off ense as “ver

y se ri ou s” and em

ph as iz ed that

the s ente nce “ m

ust r efle ct the s er iousness of

the off ense , th e n eedto p ro m o te resp ect f o r th e law , an dto p ro v id e j u st p u n ish m en t.” A p p . at 9 0 ; se e 18 U. S. C. § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( A)
. I t a l s o not e d that

Spe nc e r ha d c omm i tt e d pr i or

offe ns e s and th at th e D istrict C o u rt’s sen ten ce “m u st sp ecif ically d eter [ h im ] .” A p p . at 9 0 ; se e 18 U. S. C. § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( B)
. The Court a l s o c ons i de r e d i n m i t i gat i on that Spe nc e r ha d not engaged in crim inal ac ti vity fo r s om e t im e, and h ad ac ce pted re spon si bili ty . Spencer
ar gue s that

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s “ undue e m

pha s i s on the ge ne r i c ne e d for de t e rr e nc e and
re tr ibution” sugg es ts that the Cou rt

had p re dete rm ined it s s ente nce. Ap pell ant’ s Br. at 14. W e di s a gr e e . I nde e d, the Court m e r e l y c ons i de r e d r e l e vant

fa c t or s . W e fi nd no
abus e of di s c r e t i on. 4b u t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 p ro p erly co n f ers su ch j u risd ictio n . H e also di s put e s th e U n i t e d St at e s Att orne y ’ s powe r t o r e pr e s e nt

the Un it ed Stat es in cr im inal m atte rs , the authority of wh ic h is c od ifie d i n 28 U. S. C. § 547( 1)
. F in a lly , the S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in U.S. Na t’ l Ba nk of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Ag ents of Am . I nc. , 508 U. S. 4 3 9 , 4 4 8 (1 9 9 3 ), em ph at i cal l yreje c ts S p e n c e r’s a rg u m e n t th at T itle 21 of the Un it ed Stat es Co de is vo id fo r Con gres s’ s fai lure to enac t th e C o d e in to p o sitiv e law
. 5 Accordingly , we wil l a ff

ir m Sp ence r’ s s ente nce.