2008 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 7-8-2008 

# U SA v . W at son 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 . 07-2899

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_2008

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 2008 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 . W ats on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 880. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/8801

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 C as e N o: 07- 2899 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DONOV AN ANT HONY WAT S ON

a/ka E RR OL ANT HONY Y OUNG

a /k /a CH AU NLEY M I LLER

a /k /a M AR K SA ULTER a /k /a O L IV E R C O H A IN a /k /a O S WA L K T A I WO a /k /a RAYM OND W ALKER, D onovan A nthonyW at s on, 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 f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- C R - 707 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J ul y3, 2008 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudgesT hi s G ui del i ne r ange i s bas ed on an A dj us t ed O ffe ns e Level of 21 and a C r i m i nal 1 H i s t o ry C a t e g o r y o f

I V . T h e f

i n d i n g s i n th e P S R a r e n o tc h a l l e n g e d b y e i t h e rp a r t y. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . A p p e llate 2 ju ri s d ic tio n e x is ts u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 -28 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 ( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2008 ) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . O n M a rc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , D o n o v a n A n th o n yW a tso n , a J a m a ica n c iti z e n , p lea d e d g u ilty in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 to a sin g le c o u n t o f re e n tr ya f

te r d e p o rt a tio n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d § 1 3 2 6 (b )( 2 ). T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed W at s on’ s Sent enci ng G ui del i ne r ange a s 57 t o 71 m ont hs . A ts ent enci ng, W at s on ur ged the D i s t r i ctC our tt o cons i dert he 1 fac tthatthe East ern D i s t r i ctdi d nothave a fas t - t r ack s ent enci ng pr ogr am for a l i ens convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng § 1326 and r eques t ed a va r i ance bel ow hi s G ui del i ne r ange. T he C ou rtcon si dered t he ab sence o f a fast -track sent encing p rogram , bu ti tdecli ned t o im po se a s ent ence bel ow t he G ui del i ne r ange. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 2 W at s on al l eges t hathi s s ent ence “w as i m pos ed as a r es ul tof an i ncorr ect appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3742( e) ( 2) . Speci fi cal l y , W at s on ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notunder s t and i t s author i t yt o varyfr om the G ui del i nes under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) beca us e of the abs ence of a f as t - t r ack pr ogr am. W at s on3

conce des thatt he abs ence of a f as t - t r ack s ent enci ng pr ogr am i s notan unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t yunder§ 3553( a) ( 6) i n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas . 477 F. 3d 94, 98 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “[T] he di s par i t ybetw een s ent ence s i n fas t - t r ack a nd nonfas t - tr ack di s t r i ct s i s author i zed byC ongr es s , and, hence , w arr ant ed. ”) . B eca us e V ar gas d o es n o t fo rec lose co n side rati o n o f th e a b sen ce o f a fa st- tr ac k sen tenc ing p rog ram u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a)’s oth er f

ac tors, W atso n arg u es th at ce rt ain s tat em en ts m ad e b ythe D istri ct C o u rt d u rin g se n ten c in g sh o w th a t th e C o u rt b e liev e d a v a ria n c e b a se d o n f a st-tra c k d isp a rity w a s o n lya u th o riz e d u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ). T h e re c o rd ill u stra tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id under s t and i t s author i t yt o varybel ow the G ui del i ne r ange. A s s uch, w e w i l l aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. W at s on al l eges an err ors i m i l art o t he one a ddr es s ed bythi s C our ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , w h e re w e h e ld th a t a d istric t co u rt e rre d b ytre a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s e f f e c tiv e ly m andat or yw hen i tdi d notr ecogni ze i t s author i t yt o varyfr om the Sent enci ng C o m m is s io n ’s c ra c k c o c a in e G u id e lin e ra n g e . 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 -4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). G un t er i nvol ved a “ non- cons t i tut i onal ” B oo ker e rro r– w h e re a d istric t co u rt f a ils to r ecogni ze i t s author i t yt o exer ci s e compl et e di s cr et i on dur i ng i t s eval uat i on of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . See id . a t 2 4 7 . B e c a u se th is p re se n ts a q u e stio n o f law , o u r re v iew is p le n a ry. I

d. W e ar e ful l yaw ar e, how ever , thats ent enci ng j udges ’ r emar ks “ar e unl i kel yt o be a per fec torcompl et e s t at ementof al l of the s urr oundi ng l aw . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4374

F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 n .8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). F u rth e rm o re , this C o u rt h a s “ re p e a ted lyh e ld th a t d istric t co u rts a re u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n ‘to r out i nel ys t at e byr ot e thatt heyhave r ead the B ookerdeci s i on orthattheyknow the s ent enci ng gui del i nes ar e now advi s ory . ’ ” V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at102 ( quot i ng C ooper , 437 F . 3 d at 32 9 ). D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng col l oquy , the D i s t r i ctC our t“r ecogni ze[ d] thatthe s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s a re n o lo n g e r m a n d a to ry ,” a n d sta ted th a t it“ m u st d e ter m in e th e f a c ts appr opr i at e fori m pos i ng a r eas onabl e s ent ence thati s ei t hera gui del i ne s ent ence ora nong u ideline s en tenc e.” A fter se n tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rtalso co m m en d ed W atso n ’s couns el , M s . T opl i n, for“do[i ng] an exc eedi ngl ygood j ob i n br i ngi ng up everyfac t ort hat I w oul d pos s i bl ycons i deri n s ent enci ng . . . . ” M or eover , exami nat i on of the s ent enci ng tr ans cr i ptcl ear l yi l l us t r at es t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , the abs ence of a f as t - t r ack pr ogr am, and W a ts o n ’s p e rs o n a l s itu a tio n . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 6 1 . W a tso n re lies h e a v ilyo n th e D istric t C o u rt’s s tate m e n t, “I w ill tak e it i n to cons i der at i on, butI w i l l onl yt ake i ti nt o cons i der at i on i n – i n deci di ng w her e i n t he g u id e lin e ra n g e I’m g o in g to se n ten c e y o u ” to p ro v e h is p o in t. W a tso n ’s r e lian c e is m i s pl ace d, how ever , as t hi s s t at ementw as t aken outof cont extand i s m er el yan expl anat i on byt he C our tt hati tchos e t o pl ace s ubs t ant i al w ei ghton t he s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e and W at s on’ s r eci di vi s m , t her ebys ent enci ng cl os ert o t he bot t om of the G ui del i ne5

r ange. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tunder s t ood i t s author i t yt o i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow t he gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on fa s t - t r ack di s par i t y , w e w i l l aff i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.