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 9-17-2009 

# U SA v . El y B ell 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 . 09-1442

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 . Ely Be ll " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 643. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/643NO T PRECEDEN TI 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. 09- 1442

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ELY B ELL al so kn ow n as “ HB” E lyB e ll, 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 M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 3- 07- cr - 00170- 002 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Edw i n M . K os i k

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

Sept ember14, 2009 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S , and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed Sept ember17, 2009 )

____ OP I NI ON SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge.2

A p p e llan t E lyB e ll p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d h im to a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e o f 1 0 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. O n a p p e a l, B e ll c h a lle n g e s o n ly th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e . W e w ill a f f ir m . I. I n 2007, fede r al and Penns y l vani a l aw enfor cementper s onnel comm ence d an i nves t i gat i on of a s us pect ed drug t r aff i cki ng r i ng i n B r adfor d C ount y , Penns y l vani a. D ur i ng t he cour s e of thati nves t i gat i on, B el l di r ect l ypart i ci pat ed i n t he s al e of c r ack coca i ne t o under coveroffi cer s . Fol l ow i ng one s uch tr ans act i on, B el l and a c o- cons pi r at or w er e arr es t ed. U l t i m at el y , a s i x- countI ndi ctm entw as r eturned aga i ns tB el l and tw o cocons pi r at or s al l egi ng a drug cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne base an d rel at ed o ffen ses. I n J anuary2008, pur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , B el l pl ed gui l t yt o one c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to d ro p th e re m a in in g c h a rg e s in t he I ndi ctm ent , t o amend t he cons pi r acycountt o r efl ecta non- s peci fi c amountof coc ai ne bas e, and t o r ecomm end a thr ee- l evel dow nw ar d departur e foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . T he governm ental s o m oved fora dow nw ar d departur e of tw o l evel s for s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . A tB el l ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed, w i t houtobj ect i on fr omBe l l w as s e nt e nc e d u nd e rt he 20 07 ve r s i on of t he U . S. 1 S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l. 3 ei t herpar t y , t he fi ndi ngs of the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) fi l ed bythe P rob ati o n O ff

ice. In li g h t of

tw o p ri o r fe lon yd rug co n v ict ion s an d a c o n v ict ion fo r a 1 cr i m e of vi ol ence , B el l w as cat egor i zed a s a ca r eeroffe nderunderthe Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s. In c lu d in g a th re e -le v e l d e p a rtu re f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty , B e ll there fo re f

ac ed an o ff

en se lev el of

tw en ty -nin e a n d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f V I, re su lti n g in a n a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g ra n g e o f 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o gr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on fora tw o- l evel departur e for s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance , w hi ch r educe d B el l ’ s G ui del i nes r ange t o 130 t o 162 m ont hs im p riso n m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n h e a rd a rg u m e n t f ro m b o th p a rties re g a rd in g a n a p p ro p ria te se n ten c e in lig h t o f

th e se n ten c in g f

a c to rs c o n tain e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). B e ll e m p h a siz e d h is a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty , h is v e ryd if f icu lt u p b rin g in g – h is p a re n ts se p a ra ted w h e n h e w a s tw e lv e , an d h e liv e d w ith h is m o th e r a n d a u n t, w h o w e re b o th add i ct ed to drugs, un t i l he w as m ov ed to fost er car e–an d h i s hi st oryof sub st ance a bu se a n d p sy c h iatric ill n e ss , inc lu d in g a d iag n o sis o f sc h izo p h re n ia b e f

o re a g e six tee n . B e ll al s o not ed that , as a cons equenc e of hi s cooper at i on w i t h t he governm enti n t hi s cas e, he w as a ssau lt ed in p ri so n . In li g h t of thes e f ac tors, B ell req u ested a se n tenc e o f n o m o re t han ei ght y - fourm ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm entconce ded thatB el l ’ s pas tw as an i m por t antm i t i gat i ng fac t orand r ecomm ended a s ent ence atthe bot t om of the G ui del i nesTh e Di s t r i c t Co u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U. S . C. 2 § 3231 a n d we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 4 r ange i n l i ghtof B el l ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the nee d fordet err ence , and the nee d f o r p u b lic s a f

e ty. A s not ed above , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 100 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our texpr es s l yfound thatB el l ’ s di ffi cul tpas ts uppor t ed a r educe d s ent ence , butal s o concl uded thati tm us tbal ance thatpas tagai ns thi s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal re c o rd a n d th e n e e d f

o r d e ter re n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , the C o u rt im p o se d a su b sta n tially bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence t hatw as betw een the s ent ence s r eques t ed byB el l and the g o v e rn m e n t. 2 II. W e re v ie w th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f a s e n te n c e u n d e r a n a b u s e -o f -d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 564 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) . W e have o u tli n e d a th re e -ste p p ro c e ss f o r d istric t co u rts to f

o llo w in im p o sin g a se n ten c e . F irst, t he courtm us tcal cul at e the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. Second, i tm us trul e on any m ot i ons fordepartur es pur s uantt o t he G ui del i nes . Fi nal l y , i tm us tcons i derthe § 3553( a) s e n te n c in g f

a c to rs to d e te rm in e th e a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . See i d. a t 5 6 7 . H er e, B el l does noti dent i fyanypr ocedur al err orbythe D i s t r i ctC our t . I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the corr ectcal cul at i on of the G ui del i nes r ange c ont ai ned i n t he PSR , gr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al5

as s i s t ance , and hea r d ar gum entfr om the part i es r egar di ng the appr opr i at e s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned on the r ecor d i t s r eas ons forthe s ent ence i m pos ed, i ncl udi ng s p e c if ic re f e re n c e to th e m o s t r e le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . T he crux of B el l ’ s ar gum enton appea l i s thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed w as su b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e “ D istric t C o u rt f a iled to g iv e e n o u g h w e ig h t to B e ll’s m e n tal c o n d iti o n , u p b rin g in g , b a ttl e w ith su b sta n c e a b u se , an d th e re a lityo f h is c rim in a l h isto ry .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 1 . H o w e v e r, “if th e d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e is pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e w i l l aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence . ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 . H e re , the D istric t C o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n . In d e e d , itim p o se d a su b sta n tially -b e lo w G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e in l i ghtof the mi t i gat i ng fac t or s i dent i fi ed byB el l . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ruck a ba l ance betw een thos e mi t i gat i ng fac t or s , B el l ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and the nee d for det err ence . W e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe C our t ’ s w ei ghi ng of thes e count ervai l i ng c o n s id e ra tio n s w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .

III . Fort he above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .