2007 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 4-30-2007 

# U SA v . N eidig 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 . 06-1588

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_2007

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 2007 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 . N eid i g " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1183. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1183T he H onor abl e A r t hurL . A l ar cón, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes 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. 06- 1588

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. WI L L I AM J . NE I DI G, 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C ri m inal A cti o n N o . 0 4 -cr-00 2 7 1 -1 (H o n o ra b le J a m e s F . M c C lu re , J r.)

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

A pr i l 26, 2007 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie

f J u d g e , F UE NT E S , a n d AL AR CÓ N, C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed A pr i l 30, 2007)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

AL AR CÓ N, C i r cui tJudge . W i l l i am N ei di g appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or ders ent enci ng hi m t o 151 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. M r . N ei di g cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed an unr eas onabl e s ent ence by 

### refusing to grant his request for a greater downward departure on the groundthat his criminal histo ry

category over repr esents the seriousn ess of his criminal histo ry . W e w i l l aff

i r m beca us e w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng d e c is io n w a s re a s o n a b le . I A B eg inn ing in Ja n u ary1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. N eidig ag ree d w ith co -de fe n d an t G reg o ry Jo n es to sh ip co ca ine v ia F ed era l E x p ress f rom M r. Jo n es to v ariou s loc ati o n s u sed b yM r. N e id ig ’s w h o le s a le d is tr ib u to rs in P e n n s y lv a n ia . 

### Mr. Ne idig’s wholesale distributors inc lud ed W i l l i am R ei d, B rentR eed, B rad K ashner, M esse K osm er, and other s. T hese i ndi vi dual s s ol d t he coc ai ne t o l ow er - l evel drug deal er s and pai d M r . N ei di g w i t h a po rt i on of the proceed s fr om t heirsal es. M r. N ei dig am assed subst anti al sum s of cash fr om hi s s al e of c ocai ne, enabl i ng hi m t o pur chas e vehi cl es , m ot or cy cl es and r eal es t at e. B O n July5, 20 05 , M r. N ei dig pl ed g uil t yt o co nspir acyt o d i stri bu t e and po sses s3

w ith inten t t o d istri b u te co ca ine in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 . M r. N eidig ’s P rese n tenc e R ep o rt(“P S R ”) c alcu lat ed a total ba se o ff en se lev el of

3 4 . F o u r l ev els w ere added ba s ed on the conc l us i on t hatM r . N ei di g “w as an or gani zerorl eade rof a c r i m i nal act i vitythat i nv olved five or m ore cr i m i nall yres po nsi ble part i ci pan t s or w as ot herw i se ext ens i ve. ” PSR at¶ 26. T he PSR r ecomm ended thatthe t ot al offe ns e l evel s houl d be r educe d byt hr ee l evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . T hi s cal cul at i on r educe d t he t otal off ense l evel t o 3 5. T he P S R charact eri zed M r. N ei dig as a car eer offen der, becau se he had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of e s cape and aggr avat ed as s aul t . T he ca r eeroffe nder d e s ig n a tio n p la c e d M r. N e id ig in c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry V I p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1. T h e G o v ern m en t m o v ed fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture b ase d o n M r. N eidig ’s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o t he G overnm ent , pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, and r ecomm ended a dow nw ar d departur e of s i x l evel s . T hi s r ecomm endat i on r educe d t he S entenci ng G uidel i ne rang e from 29 2 to 365 m on t hs t o 1 51 t o 1 88 m on t hs. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . N ei di g as ked the D i s t r i ctC our tt o m ove hi m t o a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I V beca us e the es cape convi ct i on r es ul t ed fr om the fa ctt hat M r. N eidig w en t t o v isi t his pa ren ts i n stead o f g o ing to h is w o rk re lease p rog ram . M r. N e id ig c o n ten d e d th a t w h ile th e P S R ’s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s c a lcu latio n s a re c o rre c t, theypr oduced a n unr eas onabl e s ent ence , beca us e the natur e of hi s es cape convi ct i on w as4

r el at i vel ym i nor . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed M r . N ei di g’ s m ot i on foran addi t i onal d o w n w ard d ep arture. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r a do w nw ard dep arture and sent enced M r. N ei dig t o b e i m pri soned for 15 1 m on t hs. M r . N ei di g fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l on February15, 2005. W e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a)(1)-(2). II M r . N ei di g cont ends t hatt he s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e 

### his criminal histo ry category over repr esents the seriousn ess of his criminal histo ry . W e r evi ew a c ri m in a l 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. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 261 ( 2005) . “W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lennon , 372 F. 3d 5 3 5 , 5 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r clear e rror, and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of thos e fa ct s t o t he G ui del i nes foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” I

d. (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). D istric t C o u rts m u st im p o se se n ten c e s th a t p ro m o te th e “ se n ten c in g g o a ls” listed in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 325- 26 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he f a c to rs lis te d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id . at329. A tr i al cour tdoes nothave “ t o di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . . . . ” Id . “O n t he otherhand, a r ot e s t at ement5

of the § 3553( a) fac t or s s houl d nots uffi ce i f ats ent enci ng ei t herthe def endantorthe pr os ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t( pr ovi ded i thas a fa ctual bas i s ) and the courtfai l s t o addr es s i t . ” Id . ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “[A ] ppel l ant s have the bur den of de m ons t r at i ng unr eas onabl enes s . ” I d. at332. H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycal cul at ed M r . N ei di g’ s bas e off ens e l evel under the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o car eful l ycons i der ed and a ddr es s ed eac h i s s ue of r ecogni zed l egal m er i tr ai s ed byM r . N ei di g. M r. N e id ig c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it fa iled to t ake i nt o acc ountt he natur e and a ge of M r . N ei di g’ s pr i ores cape convi ct i on w hen i m pos i ng the s ent ence . M r . N ei di g s peci fi cal l yar gues thathe w as onl y21 y ear s of age w hen he c om m i t t ed the es cape offe ns e, and thatthe natur e of the off ens e w as nots er i ous b e c a u s e h e m e re ly w e n t to s e e h is f a m ily in s te a d o f

g o in g to h is w o rk re le a s e p ro g ra m . T hatoffe ns e el evat ed M r . N ei di g t o cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryV I . M r . N ei di g cont ends that the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s refusal t o v aryM r. N ei dig’ s sent ence in l i gh tof thi s al l eged harsh r es ul tpr oduced a n unr eas onabl e s ent ence , beca us e i ts how s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not pr oper l ycons i dert he “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs of the def endant ” under§ 3553( a) ( 1) . B r i ef of A ppel l antat12. D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , M r . N ei di g r ai s ed the i s s ue of hi s pr i ores cape6

convi ct i on w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tand pr es ent ed a s i m i l arar gum entfora s ent ence red u cti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n side red this argu m en t and rejected itb ec au se M r. N eidig h ad an ex tens ive c ri m inal h ist o ry . T h e re co rd sh o w s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt c o n s id e re d th e n a tu re a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f M r. N e id ig ’s o f

f e n s e , a n d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s agr eementw i t h M r . N ei di g’ s concl us i on r egar di ng hi s cr i m i nal h is to ry d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 546 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve mi t i gat i ng fac t or s t he w ei ghta def endantcont ends theydes erve [doe s not ] r ender [] the s ent ence u n rea so n ab le”). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.