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 7-13-2009 

# U SA v . Gregory V ince nt 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 . 08-4568

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 . Gr e g ory V

inc e nt " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1017. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1017T h e H o n o rab le P au l S. D iam o n d , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, 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. 08- 4568

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. G R E G O R Y V I N C E N T , a / k / a G - M o n e y, a/k/a V ince n t G reg o ry GR EGO RY VI NC ENT, A ppel l ant O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( N o. 3- 08- cr - 00351- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 1, 2009 B E FO R E : FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges and D I A M O N D , D i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: J ul y13, 2009)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.2

A ppel l ant , G r egoryV i ncent( “V i ncent ”) , pl ed gui l t yt o know i ngl ypos s es s i ng a fi r earm w hi l e a c onvi ct ed fe l on, and now appea l s hi s s ent ence . W e w i l l aff i r m the se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. I. B eca us e w e s ol el yw r i t e fort he part i es , w e w i l l onl ybr i efl ys um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . O n J une 15, 2007, a Speci al A gentw i t h t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, B ur eau of

A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s , and Expl os i ves ( “A T F”) r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om a conf

i dent i al i nform antt hatV i ncentw as offe r i ng a A K - 47- s t y l e r i fl e fors al e for $ 1 8 0 0 . T h e i n f

o r ma n tt h e n p u r c h a s e d th e f i r e a r m f r o m V i n c e n to n J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 . On O ct ober16, 2007, A T F agent s arr i ved atV i ncent ’ s hom e t o exec ut e the w arr antar i s i ng out of the J une 18 tr ans act i on, and, w hi l e enga gi ng i n a pr ot ect i ve s w eep of hi s hom e, they dis cov ered a l oad ed revo l ver und erneath V i ncen t ’s m at t res s. V in c e n t w a s c h a rg e d w ith , a n d p le d g u ilty to , k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s in g th a t f ir e a rm , a S tu rm , R u g e r & C o m p a n y , . 3 5 7 M a g n u m c a lib e r re v o lv e r, w h ile a c o n v icte d f e lo n , in viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)( 1) and 9 24 (a) (2) . H e w as not charged w i t h an yoff ense ar i s i ng outof the J une 18, 2007 t r ans act i on. A ft erhol di ng a s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d V i ncentt o 77 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. V i ncentnow appea l s hi s s ent ence . II.3

T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 3742( a) . I n r evi ew i ng V i ncent ’ s s ent ence , fi r s t , w e mustdet erm i ne thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t“comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al e rro r,” s u c h a s “ f

a ili n g to c o n sid e r th e [ 1 8 U .S .C .] § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . . . or f

a ili n g to adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence . ” G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sm al l ey , 517 F. 3d 208, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I f the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e then r evi ew the s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, “t ak[i ng] i nt o acc ountthe t ot al i tyof th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” G a ll, 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 ; s e e S m a lle y , 5 1 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 4 . In re v iew in g th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w h ile w e “ d o n o t se e k to s econd gue s s , ” w e neve r t hel es s m us tas s ur e our s el ves thati thas gi ven us an “e xpl anat i on .

. . s uffi ci entforus t o s ee thatt he part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e have been gi ven m eani ngful cons i der at i on w i t hi n t he par amet er s of § 3553( a) , ” U ni t ed St at es v. L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d 190, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a n “i ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m entbas ed on the fa ct s pr es ent ed. ” G al l , 128 S. C t . at597; L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d at 1 9 6 . In a d d iti o n , “[ t]h e se n ten c in g ju d g e sh o u ld se t f o rth e n o u g h to sa tisf

yth e a p p e llate cour tt hathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i t y . ” R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 (2 0 0 7 ). III .4

V i ncentm akes t hr ee a r gum ent s on appea l . Fi r s t , V i ncentar gues thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s dow nw ar d departur e mot i on bas ed on the al l eged over s t at ementof hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . H e cont ends thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryw as over s t at ed beca us e manyof the cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s came fr om cr i m es thatoccurr ed w hen V i ncent w as a y oung m an, and thatt he cr i m es w er e most l ym i noroffe ns es . T hi s C our tdoes not h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n n o t to g ra n t a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re . U n ited S tate s v . V a rg a s, 4 7 7 F .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n to re v iew su c h a d e n ial, h o w e v e r, if th e d istric t co u rt m ista k e n ly t houghtt hati tl acke d t he di s cr et i on t o do s o. V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at103. A s ther e i s no ind icati o n that the D istri ct C o u rtb eli ev ed itlack ed the d iscreti o n to g ran t V ince n t’ s mo t i o n h e r e , t h i s Co u r th a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w h i s c l a i m. S e c o n d , Vi n c e n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r te r r e d wh e n i td i d n o tg r a n tt o h i m a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o r v a ria n c e w ith re g a rd to h is p h y sic a l li m itatio n s. V in c e n t is p a ra ly z e d f

ro m th e w a ist d o w n a n d h a s c e rta in a c c o m p a n y in g m e d ica l issu e s, su c h a s h is us e of a cathet er , w hi ch he a r gues w i l l m ake pr i s on di ffi cul tforhi m . T hi s C our thas no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of V i ncent ’ s dow nw ar d departur e mot i on on t hi s gr ound, as t her e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tbel i eved i tl acke d t he d iscreti o n to g ran t V ince n t’ s m o ti o n . V arg as, 47 7 F . 3 d at 10 3 . W ith reg ard to V ince n t’ s a rg u m e n t th a t a v a ria n c e w a s w a rra n ted , w e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d iscreti o n in d en y ing V ince n t’ s v arian ce req u est, as th e C o u rttoo k into a cc o u n t V ince n t’ s5

phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons w hen cr aft i ng t he s ent ence . See, e. g. , A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 67 ( “I t hi nk t hat[V i ncent ’ s phy s i cal condi t i on] does come i nt o pl ayw hen I come dow n on w her e a r eas onabl e s ent ence oughtt o fal l , t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe s t atut oryfac t or s . ”) ; A pp. 70- 71 ( expl ai ni ng t hati tw i l l t ake i nt o acc ountV i ncent ’ s phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons and medi cal i s s ues in se n tenc ing h im ); A p p . 7 1 -72 (ex p lai n ing that h is ph y sical l im it ati o n s are w h ythe C o u rt g a v e a s e n te n c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e G u id e lin e s ). Fi nal l y , V i ncentcont ends t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tt ook i nt o acc ountt he unchar ged conduc tfr om J une 2007 i n s ent enci ng hi m . I n anal y zi ng thatconduct , and deci di ng t o t ake i ti nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatthe al l egat i ons agai ns tV i ncentw er e verys peci fi c, and thatther e w as a “s ubs t ant i al ” i nves t i gat i on. A pp. 6 4 - 6 5 . Th e Cou r tn o t e d t h a tt h e p r i o rc o n d u c twas r e l e v a n tb e c a u s e th a ti s whyth e ATF agent s w er e atV i ncent ’ s hom e i n O ct ober2007. A pp. 65. N evert hel es s , the C our ts t at ed,

“ I th in k it ef

f e c ts [ sic ] m o re th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e c rim in a l h isto ryis o v e rsta ted th a n it does w her e I come dow n on t he ac tual s ent ence , ” and e xpl ai ned thatV i ncent ’ s tr aff i cki ng i n guns s o s oon aft erget t i ng r el eas ed fr om j ai l s ugges t ed thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryw as not o v erstated . A p p . 6 5 -66 . H o w ev er, ata later p o int i n the s en tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rt s t at ed thatt he pr i orconductw as “verys i gni fi cant , even mor e s i gni fi cantthan the cr i m e of convi ct i on. ” A pp. 71- 72. W e f in d th a t itw a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n f

o r th e D istric t C o u rt to tak e in to a c c o u n tVi n c e n t ’ s p r i o rc o n d u c ti n i mp o s i n g th e s e n t e n c e . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 6 6 1 ( “ No6

l i m i t at i on s hal l be pl ace d on t he i nform at i on conce r ni ng the bac kgr ound, char act er , and conductof a pe r s on convi ct ed of a n offe ns e w hi ch a c our tof the U ni t ed St at es m ayr ece i ve and cons i derfort he purpos e of i m pos i ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence . ”) . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. B err y , 553 F. 3d 273, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( “[A ] bar e arr es tr ecor d - w i t houtm or e - does not j us t i fyan as s um pt i on t hatt he def endantcomm i t t ed othercr i m es and i tther efor e ca nnot s uppor ti ncr eas i ng hi s /hers ent ence i n t he abs ence of ade quat e pr oof of c r i m i nal act i vi t y . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R udol ph, 137 F. 3d 173, 177 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( unchar ged co n d u ct m ayfo rm the b asis fo r up w ard o r do w n w ard sen tenc ing ad justm en ts) . H ere , there w as m uch more t han a ba r e arr es tr ecor d - ther e w as a s peci fi c r ecount i ng of the i nves t i gat i on - and t aki ng t hi s conducti nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng V i ncentw as notan a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . F u rth erm o re, w h il e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s st atem en t th at th e p ri o r co n d u ct w as “ v ery s i gni fi cant , even mor e s i gni fi cantt han the cr i m e of c onvi ct i on, ” A pp. 71- 72, w as un fortun at e, w e nev ertheles s fi nd t hat this com m ent does no tri se t o the l evel of an ab use o f d iscreti o n , as th e o v era ll co n text o f th e se n tenc ing sh o w s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt s e n te n c e d V in c e n t b a s e d o n a m yri a d o f f a c to rs , n o t p re d o m in a n tly th e u n c h a rg e d c o n d u c t. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fi s her , 502 F. 3d 293, 312 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( R endel l , J . , concurr i ng) (“ [ T ]h e d e f

e n d a n t’s rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss is im p lica ted w h e n it ap p e a rs th a t a d e f e n d a n t is bei ng s ent ence d pr i m ar i l yfora cr i m e otherthan the cr i m e of c onvi ct i on, s uch as w hen the7

defe ndant ’ s s ent ence i s bas ed pr edomi nant l yon cr i m i nal conductcol l at er al t o t he cr i m e of co n v ict ion . ”). I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , 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 .