2004 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 4-29-2004 

# U SA v . H off ne r 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 . 02-2642

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . H off ne r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 766. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/766NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 02-2642

____________ UNIT ED STA TES OFAMERI CA,

v. TH OM AS F. H OF FN ER , JR ., Appellant

____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(Dist. Court No. 00-cr -00456-2) District Cou rt Judge: H on. Ha rvey Bartle, III
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 30, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, A LD ISE RT and BE CK ER , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: Apri l 29, 2004)

______________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

______________________1 Hoffner, Jr. and Katzin, Sr. were tri ed apart from their co-defendants because

following their respective pretrial releases, and before the schedu led trial date, Hoff ner, Jr. and Katzin, Sr. vi olated the conditi ons of pretrial release by becoming fugitives. -2- PER CU RIA M : Thomas F. Hoffner, J r. ( Hoffner, Jr .) r aises two arguments on appe al. First , he argues that theDistri ct Court abused it s discretion by admitting the e xpert testi mony of Narcotic s Agent Kenneth Bell is (Agent Belli s) concerning “drug j argon.” Sec ond, he contends t

hat theDistri ct Court e rred byfail ing to gi ve any reason for i mposing a sentenceabove the bottom of the gui delinerange. We find t hese argument s to be wit hout
mer it andth er efo re aff

irm. Ho ffne r, Jr. wa s tried b efore a jury w ith one of h is ten co -defe ndan ts, M ark L ouis Katzin, Sr. (K atzin, Sr.). 1 Hoffner, Jr. was convicted of conspiracy to dist ribute in excess of 500 grams of methamphet amine, i n violat ion of 21 U.S.C. § 846; dis tri bution of methamphetamine, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a )(1); and using a communicat ion facility in furtherance of a d rug offe nse, in violation of 2 1 U.S .C. § 843 (b). I. Hoffner’s fi rst argument, as noted, concerns t he admissi on of expert

testimony by Agent Belli s. The Dist

rict Court’s r

ulings regardi ng the qual ific ation of Agent Belli s as
an e xpe rt an d th e ad mis sion of h is ex per t testim ony a re re view ed f or a bus e of disc retio n. See Un ited Sta tes v. M athis , 264 F.3 d 32 1, 33 5 (3 d C ir. 20 01) , cert. denied , 535 U.S. 908 (2002).-3-

Du ring h is testimo ny, Ag ent B ellis interp reted p urpo rted “d rug jar gon ” in
num erous reco rded con versations. Th e argum ents mad e in this appeal b y Hoffn er Jr.
conc erning Ag ent B ellis’s testim ony are n ot ma terially diffe rent fro m tho se raise d in an earlier appeal byco-defendants Tho mas Ho ffne r, Sr., M ichae l Ho ffne r, and F rank Ben nett. A lthoug h tho se de fend ants were tri ed at a se paratetri al, the government intr oduced virt

ually the same evi dence against them as it did against H offner Jr. T he sam e trial judge and p rosecutor w ere invo lved. In the sep arate a ppea l taken by those defe ndan ts, our co urt rejec ted ess entially the s am e arg um ents as H off ner Jr. no w a dva nce s. See Un ited Sta tes v. B enne tt , 74 F ed. App x. 201, 200 3 U.S . App L EX IS 1805 6 (3d C ir. 2003). W e likewise reject H offner Jr.’s
con tenti ons . The Distri ct Court a cted wellwithin i ts di scretion in qual ify ing Agent Bell is as an expert and permitt

ing him t o trans latedrug jar gon. In United States v. Gibbs , 190 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999), we st ated:

Because the pri mary pur pose of coded d rug langu age is to conceal the meaning of the conver sati on from outsi ders through delibe rate obsc urity, drug tra ffick ers' jargo n is a specia lize d body of knowledge and thus an a ppropriate sub ject for expe rt tes tim on y. Suc h testim ony is relat ively uncontrover sialwh en it perm its a gov ernm ent ag ent to e xplain the ac tu al me anings of coded words--that is, when the agent acts as a translator of sort s. 190 F.3 d at 2 11 ( citatio ns o mitte d). Moreover, as we hel d in Ben nett , even if som e of A gent B ellis’s testim ony sho uld2 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c ) provi des, i n perti nent part : “thecourt, at thetime of

sentenci ng, shal l st ate i n open court t he reasons for it s imposi tion of t he parti cular senten ce, an d if the senten ce - (1) is of th e kind , and w ithin the rang e des cribed in subsection (a)(4) [i .e., the applicable Guideline range], and that range exceeds 24 mon ths, the r eas ons for imp osin g a s ente nce at a p artic ular poi nt w ithin the r ang e.” -4- not have been admi tted, given theother evi dence of Hoffner, Jr.’ s guil t, i ncluding t he testimo ny of co rrobo rating w itnesse s, any po ssible e rror he re w as ha rmles s, as w e find it “highly probable t

hat theerror

did not cont

ribute to thejudgment. ” Gibbs , 190 F.3d at 213 (cita tion om itted ). II. The seco nd ar gum ent ad vanc ed by H offn er, Jr. is that th e D istrict Co urt faile d to comply wit

h 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c )(1), which requires a judge to state in open court at sentenci ng the judge ’s rea sons for i mposing a sentence at a parti cular poi nt withi n a guideline range if that

range spans more than 24 m onths. 2 Because thi s objection was not pre serv ed a t sen tenc ing , our rev iew is fo r pla in er ror. United States v. Couch , 291 F.3d 251, 252 -53 (3d cir. 200 2). Although we remanded the matter of c o-defendant Thomas Hoffner, Sr. for resentencing on the basis of a completeomissi on of any reason for t he imposit

ion of a sentencewithin hi s range, the sentencing of Hoffner, Jr. is di fferent . Hoffner, Sr. face d a range of 235-293 months, and t he District Court

sentence d him to 262 months. In the Hof fner, Sr. sentenc ing procee ding, as opp osed to that fo r Hof fner, Jr., the District Court made no direct

statement about t

he reason for

the sentence assi gned. Here, the Dist rictCou rt addressed H offner, Jr.’s particular situation in de nying his request fo r a dow nwa rd

departure for bei ng a minor part icipant. Supp. App. 313. Whether or not we would find that t he District Court

complied wit

h 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c ) if an obj ecti on had been rai sed, on the fact s of thi s case, we cannot saythat t he District Court

committed pl ain error in not pro vid ing a fu ller e xpl ana tion
. III. We have considered a ll of t he arguments made by

Hoffner, Jr . but fi nd no ground for rever sal. Therefore, the judgment of the Dist

rict Court is affirmed.