2008 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
10-7-2008 

# U SA v . W i l li ams 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 . 07-3372

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 no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 2008 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 on t 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 . W i l l i am s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 398. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/398NOT 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- 3372
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TH O M A S A N TH O N Y W I LLI A M S, 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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 06- cr - 00645) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. M aryL
. C ooper

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

on J une 27, 2008
B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2008)

O P I N I O N2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: T hom as A nt hony W i l l i ams appea l s t he j udgm ent of s ent ence i m pos ed on hi m byt he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey . T he onl y i s s ue on appeal i s t he
r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence . For t he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent
o f th e D istric t C o u rt. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory B e c a u se th e f

a c ts a re w e ll k n o w n to th e p a rties , w e w ill d isc u ss th e m o n lyb rie f ly her e. W ill iam s w a s in d icte d f o r k n o w in g lya n d w ill f u llye sc a p in g f

ro m a n in stitu tio n in wh i c h h e wa s l a wf

u l l yc o n f i n e d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 7 5 1 ( a ) a n d 4 0 8 2 ( a )
. W i l l i a ms
es cape d fr om t he For tD i x Feder al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on. W i l l i ams pl ed gui l t yt o t he i ndi ct m enton February 27, 2007. T he U
. S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes pr ovi ded a r ange of 27 t o 33 m o n ths i m pr i s onm entforW i l l i ams’ offe ns e. I n addi t i on, G ui del i nes § 5G 1. 3( a) pr ovi des , “I f the i ns t antoffe ns e w as comm i t t ed w hi l e the def endant w as s er vi ng a t er m of im p riso n m e n t . . . the se n ten c e f o r th e in sta n t o f

f e n se sh a ll b e im p o se d to ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly to th e u n d is c h a rg e d te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t.” T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng on J ul y 23, 2007. Pr i or t o t hathear i ng, W ill iam s h a d su b m itt e d a m e m o ra n d u m re q u e stin g a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re p u rsu a n t to G u id e lin e s § § 5 H 1 .4 a n d 5 K 2 .0 (a )( 3 ). S e c tio n 5 H 1 .4 p ro v id e s ,

“Phy s i cal condi t i on . . . i s notor di nar i l yr el evanti n det er m i ni ng w hether a departur e m ay be w arr ant ed. H ow ever, an3 ex tr ao rdin aryp h y s ical i m p airm en t m ayb e a rea so n to d ep art d o w n w a rd ; e. g. , in th e c a se o f a se rio u slyin f

irm d e f e n d a n t, hom e det ent i on m aybe as eff i ci entas , and l es s cos t l yt han, im p ri s o n m e n t.” S ect i on 5K 2. 0(a) (3) provides,

“A departur e ma y b e w arr ant ed i n an exc ept i onal cas e, even th o u g h th e c irc u m sta n c e th a t f o rm s th e b a sis f

o r th e d e p a rtu re is tak e n in to c o n sid e ra tio n in d e te r m in in g th e g u id e lin e ra n g e , if t he courtd et er m i nes t hats uch ci r cumst ance i s pr es enti n t he o f f e n se to a d e g re e su b sta n tiallyin e x c e ss o f , o r su b sta n tially b e lo w , th a t w h ic h o rd in a ri ly is in v o lv e d in th a t k in d o f o f f e n s e .”
W i l l i ams s oughta departur e pur s uant t o § 5H 1. 4 on t he bas i s of hi s m edi cal condi t i on
a n d u n d e r § 5 K 2 .0 (a )( 3 ) o n th e g ro u n d th a t h is e s c a p e r e p r e s e n te d a n “ e x c e p tio n a l c a s e .” W i l l i a ms c l a i me d t h a t h e h a d e s c a p e d f r o m F o r t Di x t o o b t a i n n e c e s s a r y me d i c a l c ar e, as evi dence d by t he fac t t hat , about four w eeks aft erhi s es cape , he vi s i t ed an e m er gencyr oom i n Ca l i f o r n i a , whe r e h e c o u l d n o t b e tu r n e d a way f o r l a c k o f i n s u r a n c e . W h i l e a tt he
emer gencyr oom , W i l l i ams ( us i ng an al i as ) underw entan angi opl as t y , a ca t het er i zat i on, and th e in s e rt io n o f

tw o s te n ts . I n addi t i on t o a dow nw ar d departur e, W i l l i ams al s o r eque ste d a 27- m ont h s ent ence t hatw oul d run concurr ent l yw i t h hi s exi s t i ng s ent ence . W i l l i ams ar gued thata s ent ence at t he bot t om of t he G ui del i nes r ange w as appr opr i at e bas ed on cons i der at i on of the s ent enci ng f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A ft erhear i ng ar gum ent s fr om couns el and a s t at ement fr om W i l l i ams, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed W i l l i ams’ r eques tfora dow nw ar d departur e and i m pos ed a s ent ence o f 334

m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , t he t op of t he G ui del i nes r ange. W hi l e acknow l edgi ng t hati thad the di s cr et i on t o gr ant a dow nw ar d departur e under § 5H 1. 4, t he D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded that W i l l i ams w as not ent i t l ed t o one bec aus e hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ydemonst r at ed thathe had
c o m m itt e d o f

f e n se s s in c e th e o n se t o f

h is m e d ica l ailm e n ts a n d b e c a u se th e re c o rd f a iled to
es t abl i s h t hat th e B u r eau of Pr i s ons had fa i l ed t o addr es s orw as i ncapa bl e of a ddr es s i ng W i l l i ams’ m edi cal pr obl ems w hi l e he w as atFor tD i x. W i t h r es pectt o W i l l i ams’ r eques tfor
a conc ur r ents ent ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet er m i ned t hat , undert he G ui del i nes , an i ndi vi dual
w ho comm i t s an off

ens e w hi l e s er vi n g a ter m of i m pr i s onm ents houl d r ece i ve a s ent ence
cons ecut i ve t o t he unfi ni s hed t er m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded furt hert hatt he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of W i l l i ams’ cas e di d notj us t i fythe i m pos i t i on of a c oncurr ents ent ence . I n cons i der i ng W i l l i ams’ r eques t for t he m i ni m um s ent ence i n t he G ui del i nes r ange
u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a), to ru n co n cu rr e n tl yw ith h is un d isch arg ed sen tenc e, th e D istri ct C o u rt
co n clud ed that the m ax im u m G u idelines sen tenc e w as a p p rop ri ate. T h e D istri ct C o u rt
re a s o n e d th a t W ill iam s h a d a h isto ryo f e sc a p in g f

e d e ra l su p e rv isio n a n d th a t th e n e e d to d e ter su c h c o n d u c t b y W ill iam s a n d o th e r in m a tes w a s a “ v e ry im p o rta n t co n sid e ra tio n ” in
cas es i nvol vi ng es cape . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatW i l l i ams coul d have s oughta r emedy for an a l l e g e d f

a i l u r e b yt h e f

e d e r a l i n s t i tu t i o n t o a d d r e s s h i s me d i c a l n e e d s b yp u r s u i ng admi ni s t r at i ve r el i ef a nd ci vi l l i t i gat i on. W ill iam s a p p e a led . H e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s s e n ten c e is u n r e a so n a b le beca us e, i n l i ghtof hi s pr offe r ed r eas on for es capi ng, a cons ecut i ve s ent ence at t he t op of the5

G ui del i nes r ange i s i nappr opr i at e. II . A n a ly sis T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on p u rsua n tt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. W e have ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). G ener al l y , fol l ow i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we r e v i e w a
s e n te n c e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 6 -28 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). R e a so n a b len e ss re v iew e ss e n tially c a lls u p o n u s to “ a sk [ ] w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on. ” R i t a v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S
. C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 (20 0 7 ). W e appl y a defe r ent i al s t andar d i n exami ni ng t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at330. “T h e p ert i nenti nqui r yi s w hethert he fi nal
s ent ence , w her everi tm ayl i e w i thin the perm i s s i bl e s t atut or yr ange, w as pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s . ” U n it ed S t at es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185 , 2 0 4 (3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed)
. T he part ychal l engi ng t he
s e n te n c e b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g its u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . I d. W il li am s h as f

ail ed to m ee t tha t bu rde n in this ca se. A s w e se t ou t abo v e, th e re co rd in d ica tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re a so n a b ly c o n sid e re d a n d a p p lied th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs in determ i ning his sent ence. Th e D i stri ctC ou rt ’s sent ence i s not unreasonab l e si m plybecau se t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not aff or d W i l l i ams’ pr offe r ed re as on for es cape t he mi t i gat i ng w ei ght he bel i eves i tdes er ved. T he r ecor d demonst r at es t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgave “ m eani ngful
cons i der at i on” t o t he § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact or s and det er m i ned thata cons ecut i ve s ent ence of the6

m axi m um l engt h w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange w as nece s s aryfordet err ence and pr ot ect i on
o f th e p u b lic . W e f

in d n o a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n . I I I . C oncl usi on F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f

o rt h a b o v e , w e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .