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 6-1-2009 

# U SA v . Ka sine George 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 . 08-2315

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 . K asine Ge org e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1259. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1259NOT 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. 08- 2315 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. K A SI N E G E O R G E , a/k/ a C as i no, A p p e llan t.

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 . N o. 3- 02- cr - 00221- 002) D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e : H o n . E d w in M . K o sik Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on February3, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 1, 2009)

O P I N I O N2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: K as i ne G eor ge appe al s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o r educe h is s e n ten c e p u rsu a n t to th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n ’s r e c e n t am e n d m e n t to t he G ui del i nes r anges forcr ack c ocai ne off ens es . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 2 3 1 a n d 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c) ( 2) ( “[I ] n t he ca s e of a defe ndantw ho has been s ent ence d . . . bas ed on a s e n te n c in g ra n g e th a t h a s b e e n s u b s e q u e n tly lo w e re d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . . . th e c o u rt m ay re d u c e th e ter m o f im p riso n m e n t . . . if s u c h a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts iss u e d b yth e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 5 0 0 F .3 d 4 8 6 , 4 9 0 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (a p p ly in g a b u se o f d isc re tio n re v iew ); U

ni t ed S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 3 3 2 F . 3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s a me ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i t yw i th t he fa ct s and the r ecor d of pr i or pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e des cr i be onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. G eor ge ar gues t hat , i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora r educe d s ent ence , t he D i s t r i ct C ou rterr ed in con si deri ng t he n ature of G eorge’s offense an d h i s cr i m i nal hi st orybecau se t hes e fa ct or s w er e al r eadyt aken i nt o acc ountbyt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . W e r ej ect t hi s ar gum entbeca us e i tconfl i ct s w i t h t he r equi r ement s of the G ui del i nes and the appl i cabl e s t atut e. Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) , t he pr ovi s i on perm i t t i ng a courtt o r educe a pri soner’ s sent ence f

oll ow i ng a chan ge in the G uidel i nes, provides that the co urtm ust3

“cons i der [] t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o t he ext entt heyar e appl i cabl e. ” See 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offe ns e and the hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant . ” See id . § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 1 ). Si m i l ar l y , t he appl i cat i on not es t o t he amended gui del i nes i ns t ructa courtcont empl at i ng a s ent ence r educt i on t o cons i der“the fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , ” as w el l as “the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the dange rt o anyper s on ort he comm uni t yt hatm aybe pos ed bya r educt i on i n t he def endant ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . ” See U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10 n. 1( B ) . Fi nal l y , w e not e thatG eor ge’ s s ent ence of 120 m ont hs , r educe d fr om t he p re v io u slya p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 9 2 to 3 6 5 m o n th s b e c a u se o f h is a ss ista n c e to t he governm ent , i s s t i l l w el l bel ow t he now appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange of 235 t o 292 m on t hs. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n wa s n o ta n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , a n d we w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng G eor ge’ s m ot i on fora r educe d s ent ence .