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 7-28-2009 

# U SA v . S h a wn Cu ff 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 . 08-4085

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 author i 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 . S h a wn C u ff " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 925. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/925NOT 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- 4085

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. SH A W N CU FF, A ppel l ant

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

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 98- cr - 00038- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay28, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Shaw n C uff a ppeal s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence , ar gui ng that t he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orbyfai l i ng t o cons i derthe cr ack c ocai ne2

amendm ent s t o t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w hen i ts ent ence d hi m t o t w el ve mo n t h s o f

i mp r i s o n me n tf

o rv i o l a t i n g th e t e r ms o f h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. In 1 9 9 8 , C u f

f p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te fiv e g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine b ase , in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d (b)(1 )(B ), a n d o n e c o u n to f

b e i n g a f

e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 922( g) ( 1) , and, i n 1999, w as s ent ence d t o ni netym onths of i m pr i s onm entand a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e fort hos e off ens es . I n A ugus t2007, w hi l e C uff w as on s upervi s ed r el eas e, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce f i l ed a pe t i t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

D e law a re , as se rtin g th a t h e h a d re c e n tlyb e e n a rre ste d f o r c e rta in cr i m i nal conductand, as a r es ul t , had vi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, namel y , t hathe notcomm i tanotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e. I n J une 2008, C uff p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , and, i n Sept emberof thaty ear , the D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch i taddr es s ed both hi s new convi ct i on and the r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d3

C uff t o 144 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entforhi s convi ct i on and an a ddi t i onal tw el ve mont hs o f i m p r i s o n m e n tf

o rh i s v i o l a t i o n o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t o ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y. C uff f i l ed a t i m el yappea l fr om the j udgm entof s ent ence , chal l engi ng onl ythe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e a tw el ve- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm entforhi s vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew a s ent ence im p o s e d u p o n re v o c a tio n o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T o t hi s end, w e mustens ur e thatthe di s t r i ct c o u rt c o m m itt e d n o sig n if ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r a n d , if it h a s n o t, th a t th e se n ten c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 58 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 5 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (s tatin g th a t o n a p p e llate r evi ew , w e ar e “t o ens ur e thata s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e s ent ence has been i m pos ed i n a p roc ed u rall yfa irw ay ”). III . C u f f a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r b e c a u se , in i m pos i ng a tw el ve- m ont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entupon t he r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, i tfai l ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountthats i nce hi s or i gi nal s ent ence i n 1999 t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on l ow er ed the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r anges forcr ackCu f f d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f h i s s e n t e n c e a n d we 1 di s cern no s ubs t ant i ve err oras t o hi s s ent ence . C uff a l s o m akes s ever al pas s i ng r efe r ence s on appea l t o K i m br ough v. U ni t ed 2 Stat es , 128 S. C t . 558 ( 2007) , but , agai n, he di d notpr evi ous l ychal l enge the cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di s par i t yw i t h r es pectt o hi s s ent ence forvi ol at i ng s upervi s ed 4 co ca ine o ff

en ses u n d er A m en d m en t 70 6 . S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e c o n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt s houl d have c ons i der ed a l es s ers ent ence forhi s s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on beca us e he d i d n o th a v e t h e o p p o r tu n i t yt o f i l e a mo t i o n f

o rr e d u c t i o n o f

s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) w i t h r es pectt o hi s fi r s tcoca i ne bas e off ens e, gi ven thathe had a l r eady s erved hi s ful l t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have r ecogni zed t h i s i s s u e i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e l e v a n tG u i d e l i n e s a m e n d m e n t s a n d p o l i c ys t a t e m e n t s . We di s agr ee. 1 C u ff ac k n o w ledg es th at he d id n o t m ak e this arg u m en t t o the D istri ct C o u rt . In reachi ng an ap propri at e sent ence, a di stri ctcou rtm ustadd res s any“color able ar gu m ents ” th a t th e p a rt ie s m a yh a v e a s s e rt e d , U n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 5 4 1 F . 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2008) , but“i s notr equi r ed t o m anufa ctur e gr ounds forthe part i es ors ear ch forgr ounds notcl ear l yr ai s ed on the r ecor d i n a conc i s e and t i m el ym anner , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D r agon , 4 7 1 F .3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 332 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d cons i der“anys ent enci ng gr ounds properl yrai sed byt he p art i es”) . H ere, the D i stri ctC ou rtadeq uatel yadd res sed t he p art i es’ ar gum ent s and di d noterrbyfai l i ng t o i dent i fys ua s pont e the s peci fi c ar gum entthatC uff n o w a ss e rts f

o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. See , e. g. , D r agon , 471 F. 3d at505. 2r el eas e, nori s t her e i s anyi ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tbel i eved i tw as

unabl e t o varybel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange on thatgr ound. U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( a) s t at es i n r el evantpartthatw her e “a defe ndanti s s ervi ng a 3 t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , and the gui del i ne r ange a ppl i cabl e t o t hatdefe ndanthas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed as a r es ul tof an a m endmentt o t he G ui del i nes M anual ” l i s t ed i n t hats ect i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tm ayr educe the def endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm entunder 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) . A tt he ti m e C uff w as sent enced for hi s supervi sed rel ease vi ol at i on, U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10( c) i ncl uded A m endment706. 5 In a d d iti o n , C u f

f ’s a rg u m e n t re sts o n th e f a u ltyp re m ise th a t th e D istric t C o u rt, undert he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, s houl d have c ons i der ed U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10 as an “appl i cabl e” or“pert i nent ” pol i cys t at ementw hen i m pos i ng s ent ence forhi s vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. S e e g e n e ra lly 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 4) ( B ) , ( a) ( 5) ( s t at i ng thata di s tr i ct 3 cour tm us tcons i dert he pert i nentpol i cys t at ement s thatthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pr om ul gat es under28 U . S. C . § 994( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 3) ) . U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10 p la in ly ap p lie s o n ly to a d e f e n d a n t w h o is c u rr e n tly “ s e rv in g a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t,” w hi l e C uff, att he t i m e of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e r evoca t i on, had al r eadybeen r el eas ed f r o m h i s t e r m o f

i mp r i s o n me n ti mp o s e d i n 1 9 9 9 . M o r e o v e r , th e c o mm e n t a r yt o U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 sta tes : “O n lya ter m o f im p riso n m e n t im p o se d a s p a rt o f th e o rig in a l se n ten c e is a u th o riz e d to b e re d u c e d u n d e r th is s e c tio n . T h is s e c tio n d o e s n o t au th o riz e a re d u c tio n in t h e t e r m o f

i mp r i s o n me n ti mp o s e d u p o n r e v o c a t i o n o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . ” U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 c m t. n.4 ; s ee , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. For m an , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 -89 (7th C ir . 2009) ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gum entt hatA m endment706 ent i t l ed the def endant , w ho had a lre a d yse rv e d h is f

u ll t e rm o f

im p riso n m e n t, t o a re d u c e d se n ten c e f o r v io latin g h is6

s upervi s ed r el eas e) . A nd C uff’ s r el i ance on cert ai n comm ent arypert ai ni ng t o m ot i ons for ear l yt erm i nat i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e i s m i s pl ace d becaus e, as he ac know l edges , he “w as notbefor e the D i s t r i ctC our ti n anyfas hi on foran ea r l yt erm i nat i on orm odi fi cat i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 13. ) T hus , C uff f ai l s t o es t abl i s h anyerr oron t h e p a r to f

t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ta n d w e r e j e c th i s a r g u m e n tt o th e c o n t r a r y. I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .