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 Third C ir c uit 12-31-2008 

# U SA v . J ohnson P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4611

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2008 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 . J o hn s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 21. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/21Th e Ho n o r a b l e S a n d r a Da yO’ Co n n o r , Re t i r e d As s o c i a t e J u s t i c e o f th e S u p r e me * C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , 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. 07- 4611

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J ONAT HAN J OHNS ON,

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 . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 0074 (H o n o ra b le J o s e p h J . F a rn a n , J r.) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge , and O ’C O N N O R , R et i r ed Ass oci ate Jus t i ce * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber31, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTA tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, J ohns on r eques t ed a s ent ence bel ow the r ange 1 r ecomm ended bythe Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he bas i s forhi s r eques tw as tw ofol d: Fi r s t , J ohns on att empt ed t o per s uade the courtthathe w as noti n dangerof r eci di vi s m beca us e he s t opped us i ng drugs and turned hi s l i fe a r ound. Second, J ohns on r eques t ed the courtbe s ym pathet i c i n l i ghtof hi s need t o arm hi m s el f bec aus e of de aththr eat s he r ece i ved fr om nei ghborhood r i val s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeci ded t o pos tpone the sen tenc ing h ea ri n g an d all o w fu rth er inv esti g ati o n into the v era cityo f Jo h n so n ’s ar gum ent s . T he s ent enci ng hear i ng w as r econve ned appr oxi m at el y6 w eeks l at er . A tthat t i m e, the courtcons i der ed addi t i onal ar gum ent s and evi dence

— i ncl udi ng evi dence Jo h n so n h ad u sed m arij u an a d u ri n g the c o n ti n u an ce — w h ich m il it ated ag ains t Joh n so n ’s e a rl ie r p le a s f

o r l e n ie n c e . S e n te n c e w a s im p o s e d a t th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e h e a ri n g . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) , and w e r evi ew 2 the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n u n d er a n ab u se-o f-d iscreti o n stan d ard . U ni t ed Stat es v. W ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . Jo n a th a n Jo h n so n , a c o n v icte d f e lo n , w a s a rre ste d a f

ter p o lice d isc o v e re d h im l ur ki ng i n an al l eyw ayand i n pos s es s i on of a l oaded ha ndgun. J ohns on pl eade d gui l tyt o, pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 9 2 4 (a)(2). T h e D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed Jo h n so n to 6 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, 3 y ea rs su p e rv ise d re lea se a n d a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. O n a p p e a l, Jo h n so n c o n ten d s h is 1 s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derthe 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s i n i t s s ent enci ng deci s i on. 2 T o w i ths t and appe l l at e r evi ew , s ent ence s m us tbe both pr ocedur al l yand s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . G a ll v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). F ir st, fo r a sen tenc e to b e p roc ed u rall yrea so n ab le, the re co rd m u st i n d icate the sen tenc ing co u rt e n g a g e d in a “ m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ).”3

U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . B ut , a di s tr i ctcourtneed not “d iscu ss an d m ak e f

ind ing s as to ea ch o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors” so lon g as “ the re co rd m a k e s c le a r t h e c o u rtto o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in s e n te n c in g .” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Second, t o es t abl i s h s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , the s ent ence m us tbe “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 ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t z er , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e g ive d ef ere n ce to a d istri ct co u rt ’s se n ten c in g d e c isio n o u t o f re c o g n iti o n th a t th e trial c o u rt is “ in th e b e st p o sitio n to det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence . ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at330. D efe r ence t o the s ent enci ng courti s part i cul ar l ys tr ong w hen a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. See Ri ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 12 7 S . C t . 24 56 , 24 63 (2007 ) ( no t i ng that a r easona bleness p re s u m p tio n f

o r w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s “ re f le c ts th e f

a c t th a t . . . b o th the s ent enci ng j udge and the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on . . . have r eac hed the s am e concl us i on a s to th e p ro p e r se n ten c e in th e p a rticu lar c a se ,” a n d “ d o u b le d e ter m in a tio n sig n if ica n tly incre ase s the li k eli h o o d that the s en tenc e is a rea so n ab le on e” ). F irst, w e c o n c lu d e th e D istric t C o u rt’s s e n ten c in g d e c isio n w a s p ro c e d u ra lly r eas onabl e. J ohns on cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derthe § 3553( a) fa ctors w h en d eterm ining h is sen tenc e, an d instead fo cu sed all it s att en ti o n o n Jo h n so n ’s u s e o f m a ri ju a n a d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g c o n tin u a n c e . T h e tr a n s c ri p t n e g a te s th is c la im . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a thor ough s ent enci ng hear i ng, atthe conc l us i on of w hi chA total of fe n se lev el of

2 2 , co m b ined w ith Jo h n so n ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f III, 3 y i el ds a G ui del i nes r ange of 51 t o 63 m onths . U . S. S. G . ch. 5, pt . A , Sent enci ng T abl e. T h e im p o s e d 6 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e is w ith in th is ra n g e . 4 the C our texpr es s l ys t at ed i thad cons i der ed al l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s and addr es s ed a num berof thos e fa ct or s s peci fi cal l y . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed J ohns on’ s hi s t oryof h a z a rd o u s c o n d u c t an d d ru g c o n v ictio n s, h is d a n g e r to so c iety , the se rio u sn e ss o f h is offe ns e, and s peci fi c det err ence . W e fi nd the D i s tr i ctC our tengage d i n a “meani ngful cons i der at i on of the [§ 3553( a) ] fac t or s , ” Les s ner , 4 9 8 F .3 d a t 2 0 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , it s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n w a s p ro c e d u ra lly re a s o n a b le . Second, the s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. J ohns on cont ends the evi dence h e h ad u sed d rug s d u ri n g the s en tenc ing co n ti n u an ce clou d ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm ents uch thathi s s ent ence does notr efl ecta r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . J ohns on’ s ar gum enti s notcons i s t entw i th the r ecor d. A s the tr ans cr i ptm akes c lea r, th e c o u rt re c o g n ize d its p o st- B ookerse n ten c in g d isc re tio n a n d , b a se d o n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s t o the ci r cumst ance s of J ohns on’ s cas e, i m pos ed a s ent ence thatfal l s w i thi n the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange: 3 T hi s courthas cons i der ed al l the fa ct or s s etforth i n the gui del i nes under18 U ni t ed St at es C ode Sect i on 3553( a) , and has cons i der ed the cha r act er i s t i cs of the def

endantas art i cul at ed her e atthe s ent enci ng. T hi s courtfi nds that thi s defe ndant ’ s s ent ence , w hi ch does noti ncl ude depa r tur e, beca us e the c o u rt, u n d e rsta n d in g its d isc re tio n , h a s re jec ted th e d e p a rtu re , is su f f icie n t, b u t n o t m o re th a n re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryto m e e t th e g o a l o f se n ten c in g in this of fe n se. T h e se n tenc e re flec ts th e se ri o u s n ature o f th e d ef en d an t’ s c rim e a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s p rio r c rim in a l h isto ry[ a n d re f lec ts th e n e e d ] to pu nis h the defen dan tas w el l as t o d et er hi m from futur e cri m i nal act s.5

A ccor di ngl y , t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe “t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s ” and r ecogni zi ng “the tr ia l c o u rtis in a s u p e ri o r p o s itio n to f in d f a c ts a n d ju d g e th e irim p o rtu n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ),” G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 5 9 7 , w e c o n c lu d e th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e d istric t co u rt “ f a lls w i thi n the br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e w i l l aff

i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .