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 7-25-2008 

# U SA v . B at i s t a-Au gs t in 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 . 07-2703

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 . B at i s t a -Au gs t in" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 792. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/792NOT 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. 07- 2703 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AL CE DO B AT I S T A- AUGUS T I N, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 07- cr - 00016) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 25, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y25, 2008)

OP I NI ON B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A l cedo Bat i s t a- A ugus t i n appea l s the 46 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed upon hi m fori l l egal r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed f e lo n y . W e w ill a f

f ir m .2 I. A p p ell an t cam e to th e U n it ed S tat es f rom the D o m inican R ep u b li c in 1 9 8 7 . In 1 9 9 0 , h e w a s c o n v icte d o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a c o n tro lled d a n g e ro u s s u b sta n c e w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e and s ent ence d t o fi ve y ear s of pr obat i on. I n 1992, he w as convi ct ed of the agg ravat ed sexu al assaul tof a c hil d les s than thirt een y ears of ag e i n v i olat i on of N . J. St at . A nn. § 2C : 14- 2( a) ( 1) and s ent ence d t o ei ghty ear s i m pr i s onm ent . I n A ugus tof 1996, he w as par ol ed and de por t ed t o t he D om i ni can Republ i c, butr eturned t o t he U ni t ed St at es w i t houtperm i s s i on i n 2001. I n 2003, he w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance and s ent ence d t o foury ear s of pr obat i on. O n O ct ober21, 20 05 , he w as apprehen ded byi m m i grat i on authori t i es. Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , appel l antpl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentr yaft er d e p o rta tio n su b se q u e n t to a c o n v ictio n f o r th e c o m m iss io n o f

a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , in vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . T he M agi s t r at e J udge ac cept ed the pl ea a nd i s s ued a r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed byor derdat ed February9, 2007. I n a Let t erM emora ndum s ubm i t t ed pr i ort o s ent enci ng, appel l ant agr eed thatt he s ent enci ng r ange unde rthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) w as 46- 57 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand di d nots eek a dow nw ar d departur e. H ow ever , he r eques t ed a “modes t ” var i ance fr om t he agr eed- upon r ange ba s ed upon, among ot herfac t or s , the “depl or abl e” c ondi t i ons att he Pas s ai c C ount yJ ai l ( “PC J ”) w her e he ha d been de t ai ned for18 m ont hs . H e ar gued thatt hos e condi t i ons “r ender ed hi s s ent ence har s herthan3

n ec essa ryto sa ti sfythe re leva n t pu rpo ses o f se n tenc ing , ” a n d the d eten ti o n “f ar m o re p u n itiv e a n d le s s c o n d u c iv e to th e re h a b ilita tiv e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g .” A p p . a t 6 3 -6 4 . H e a lso a rgu ed that h is m o ti v ati o n fo r return ing to the U n it ed S tat es ju sti fied a “ m ea su re of l eni ency , ” bec aus e he r etur ned her e t o w or k and bec aus e much of hi s fami l yw as her e, in c lu d in g h is m o th e r w h o w a s g ra v e ly ill. Id . a t 6 3 . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconfi r m ed thatther e w er e no departur e r eques t s and s t at ed thati tw oul d t her efor e begi n i t s anal y s i s ats t ep thr ee of U n it ed S tat es v . G u n ter, 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), an d w o u ld co n side r ap p ell an t’ s r eques tfora var i ance under§ 3553( a) . I n addi t i on t o t hos e fa ct or s appel l anthad ea r l i er a sk e d th e C o u rt to c o n sid e r, h e a sk e d th e C o u rt to tak e in to a c c o u n t th e f a c t th a t, de sp ite t h e d a n g e ro f

d e p o r t a t i o n , h e v o l u n t a r i l yr e g i s t e r e d a s a s e x o f f e n d e ru n d e rM e g a n ’ s L a w; hi s pr i ors ubs t ance abus e; hi s at t empt s t o m ai nt ai n s t eadyempl oym entw hi l e i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s ; a n d h is m is ta k e n b e lie f th a t h e c o u ld re tu rn to th e U n ite d S ta te s a f te r f iv e y e a rs . A f ter h e a rin g th e p a rties ’ a rg u m e n ts, th e D istric t C o u rt sta ted th a t [w ] i t h r es pectt o t he Pas s ai c C ount yJ ai l , the condi t i ons des cr i bed ther e do ap p lyto all th e p ri so n ers, th ere ’s no thing that ind icates tha t th eyw ere n ’t t ypi cal condi t i ons appl i cabl e t o al l pr i s oner s and, ther efor e, I don’ tfi nd that to b e a b a s is f

o r a v a ri a n c e . . . . A p p . at 30 . T h e C o u rtalso stat ed that itw as sy m p athe ti c w ith reg ard to ap p ell an t’ s conce r n forhi s s i ck mot herand hi s err oneous bel i ef thathe coul d r eturn t o t he U ni t ed S tat es (a lth o u g h itn o ted h e h ad b ee n w arn ed o f th e c o n seq u en ce s o f a n yil lega l r ee n try ),
an d that itw as c o m m en d ab le th at he h ad rep o rt ed u n d er M eg an ’s L aw . T h e C o u rt4

concl uded thati tw oul d notgr anta var i ance , butw oul d cons i derthes e fa ct or s w i t hi n the agr eed- upon G ui del i nes r ange. T he C our ts ent ence d appel l antt o 46 m onths im p ri s o n m e n t, th e b o tto m o f th a t r a n g e . A p p e lla n t f

ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r th a d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a )( 1 ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r evi ew a s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s . U ni t ed St at es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T her e i s a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s w hen, as her e, the s ent ence is w ith in the G u idelines ran g e. R it a v . U n it ed S tat es, 12 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 -66 (20 0 7 ); U n it ed S tat es v . O lfan o , 5 0 3 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). “[ T ]ho se se n tenc es th at are
w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange a r e more l i kel yt o be r eas onabl e than thos e thatfal l out s i de [ th e ] r a n g e .” O lf

a n o , 5 0 3 F .3 d a t 2 4 5 . III . A ppel l antar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i derhi s ar gum ent t hatt he condi t i ons atPC J r ender ed hi s s ent ence m or e puni t i ve than nec es s aryt o s at i s fy the re leva n t § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d the re leva n t pu rpo ses o f se n tenc ing . W h il e the C o u rt d id n o t ex p licitlyru le o n th is s p e c if ic a rg u m e n t, co n c lu d in g in ste a d th a t th e c o n d iti o n s in
w hi ch appe l l antw as hous ed w er e not“s uffi ci ent l yunus ual , ” i d. at20, i ti s cl earthatt he C our tcons i der ed the i s s ue as fr amed byappel l antgi ven thati thad r ead the l engthyA ppel l antal s o not es t hati n i t s St at ementof R eas ons , the D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed that 1 “the courtfi nds no r eas on t o departfr om the s ent ence cal l ed forbyappl i cat i on of the gui del i nes . ” Thi s s t at ement , how ever , t aken i n t he cont extof the C our t ’ s di s cus s i on at t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, does notl ead us t o concl ude thatthe C our tappl i ed an i m pr oper s t andar d. 5 m e m o ra n d a w h ich d isc u ss e d it, h e a rd a rg u m e n t o n it at th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , an d d id notfi nd t hata var i ance w as w arr ant ed bec aus e of i t . M or eover , the C our texpl ai ned w hy i tr ej ect ed appe l l ant ’ s ot herr eas ons i n s uppor tof a va r i ance , not i ng thati tw oul d t ake th e m in to a c c o u n t in im p o s in g a s e n te n c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . W e a l s o r e

j e c ta p p e l l a n t ’ s a r g u m e n tth a tth e r e c o r d r e v e a l s th e “ s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i ty” that the D istri ct C o u rth eld h is va ri an ce req u est t o the s tand ard ap p li ca b le t o d ep arture req u ests. S p ec ifi ca ll y , ap p ell an t argu es th at th e C o u rt ’s find ing that the c o n d it ion s w ere not“unus ual ” or“atypi cal ” s ugges t s thatthe C our tw as appl y i ng the depa r tur e s t andar d, b e c a u se “ e x tra o rd in a rin e ss ,” w h ich is n o t a p re re q u isite f o r g ra n tin g a v a ria n c e , se e G a ll
v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 595 ( 2007) , i s atthe hea r tof the depa r tur e fr amew or k. 1 A l t hough t he C our tm ayhave us ed l anguage s i m i l art o t hatus ed bycour t s rul i ng on departur e r eques t s , i ti s cl eart hatt he C our tunder s t ood t hatappel l ants oughta var i ance u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ) w h e n it co n f irm e d th a t th e re w e re n o d e p a rtu re re q u e sts , an d k n e w th a t it h ad the d iscreti o n to g ran t a va ri an ce . T h ere is no ev iden ce to su g g est th at th e C o u rt reli ed o n an ything o ther tha n it s d iscreti o n w h en itd en ied a p p ell an t’ s req u est fo r a v a ri a n c e a n d s e n te n c e d h im to th e b o tto m o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . F o r t h e a b o v e 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 .