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 3-28-2007 

# U SA v . M o o dy 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 . 05-2120

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 nova . 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 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 nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M oody " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1423. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1423H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e F e d e ra l C irc u it, * 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. 05- 2120 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. S HAR ON MOODY, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00711- 9) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 15, 2007 B efore: F U E N T E S , G R E E N B E R G , L O U R IE, C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 28, 2007)2 ______________ OP I NI ON

______________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. S h a ro n M o o d ya p p e a ls h e r se n ten c e , w h ich w a s im p o se d a f ter sh e p lea d e d g u ilty pur s uantt o a coope r at i on pl ea a gr eement , t o one countof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e her oi ne, coca i ne, and coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and one c ountof di s t r i but i on of her oi ne w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool ( and ai di ng and abe t t i ng) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , 860 and 18 U . S. C . § 2. A ft ergr ant i ng t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on fordepartur e pur s uantt o Sect i on 5K 1. 1 of t he U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes and con si deri ng t he 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fact ors, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 72 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , a s i x- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $200. T he 72 mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entt hat t he C our ti m pos ed w as a s i gni fi cantdow nw ar d departur e fr om t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes ra n g e o f 2 6 2 -3 2 7 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. O n appea l , M oodyar gues t hatal t hough s he w as s ent ence d bel ow t he gui del i nes r ange, t he s ent ence w as gr eat ert han nec es s aryunder18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) and t her efor e unr eas onabl e. Si nce he rarr es ti n 1999, M oodycl ai m s s he has s t ay ed off drugs and w or ks att he Phi l adel phi a W or kfor ce D evel opm entC orpor at i on ( an or gani zat i on t hat as s i s t s peopl e maki ng t he tr ans i t i on fr om w el far e t o w or k) . She ar gues t hather r ehabi l i t at i on and fa m i l ys i tuat i on ( s he i s t he mot herof fi ve, and pr i m arycar et akerfor3

th re e o f h e r m in o r c h ild re n ) w e re n o t a d e q u a te ly ta k e n in to a c c o u n t b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . M oodyal s o ar gues t hatanotherdefe ndantw ho pl ay ed a s i m i l ar l yl i m i t ed r ol e i n t he cons pi r acyr ece i ved “s i gni fi cantdepartur es ” fr om t he gui del i nes . She s ugges t s t hatt hey w e re m o re s ig n if

ic a n t th a n w h a t s h e re c e iv e d . W e re v ie w a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s im p o s itio n o f 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 St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 261 ( 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D r agon, 471 F. 3d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . C o o p e r, 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). C ooperes t abl i s hed the fr amew or k forourr evi ew , expl ai ni ng t hat“w e mustfi r s tbe s at i s fi ed the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng t he r el evantfac t or s . ” 437 F. 3d at329. “[T] he courti s notr equi r ed t o di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs ‘ if th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th e c o u rt to o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in sen tenc ing . ’ ” D rag o n , 4 7 1 F . 3 d at 50 5 (qu o ti n g C o o p er, 43 7 F . 3 d at 32 9 ). N o r are the re an ym ag ic w o rds th at a d istri ct j u d g e m u st use w h en sen tenc ing , as lo n g as th e re co rd s how s “thatt he courtcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and anys ent enci ng gr ounds pr oper l yr ai s ed byt he part i es w hi ch have r ecogni zed l egal m er i tand fa ctual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d. ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329. M or eover , “di s t r i ctj udges ar e notr equi r ed byt he par s i m onypr ovi s i on t o r out i nel ys t at e thatt he s ent ence i m pos ed i s t he mi ni m um s ent ence nece s s aryt o achi eve the purpos es s etfor t h i n § 3553( a) ( 2) . ” D r agon, 471 F. 3d at506. C o n sid e rin g th e se p rin c ip les , w e d e n yM o o d y ’s a p p e a l b e c a u se th e re c o rd re v e a ls t hatt he C our tcar eful l ycons i der ed herr ehabi l i t at i on, fami l ys i tuat i on, and the s ent ence s4

re c e iv e d b ysim ilarlysitu a ted d e f e n d a n ts in th e c o n sp ira c y— in d e e d , the C o u rt a d e q u a tely ad d resse d all o f th e § 3 5 5 3 fa ctors. T h e C o u rtstat ed at sen tenc ing that M o o d y ’s “extr aor di naryr ehabi l i t at i on w as t aken ve r ym uch i nt o acc ount ” i n hers ent ence . T he C o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d M o o d y ’s c h ild re n ’s te stim o n ya b o u t h e r re c o v e ryw h ile o u t o n b a il. T he C our tbal ance d t hes e fa ct or s , how ever , agai ns tt he s er i ous nes s of the drug cr i m es char ged. Fort en y ear s M oodyhad s i gni fi canti nvol vementi n t he D ar i en St r eet D ru g O rg a n iza tio n . A s a “ c a se w o rk e r,” M o o d yw a s re sp o n sib le f o r su p p ly in g h e ro in to stre e t se llers o n a d a ilyb a sis f ro m h e r h o m e , w h e re sh e a lso p e rm itt e d th e O rg a n iza tio n to bag drugs everyni ght . T he r ecor d s how s t hatot herdefe ndant s w i t h s i m i l arl evel s of i nvol vementr ece i ved s ent ence s s i m i l art o orgr eat ert han M oody ’ s . A l t hough one defe ndantw i t h s i m i l ari nvol vementr ece i ved a l ow ers ent ence of 57 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , t he governm enthad ar gued thats he had c ooper at ed more ext ens i vel yt han M o o d y. B as ed on the r ecor d, i ti s cl eart hatM oody ’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. W e have c o n s id e re d a ll o f

M o o d y ’s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e ya re w ith o u t m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e .