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 7-23-2009 

# U SA v . F a bi an M et oye r 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 . 08-3866

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 . F a b i an M e t o ye r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 959. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/959The Honorable Jan E. DuB ois, Senior District Judg e for the United States District Court * for the E astern D istrict of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

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- 3866 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. FA B I A N M E T O Y E R , a/k/ a Spl i ff F ab ian M etoy er, 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 fort he D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 3- 96- cr - 00149- 004 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr. Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 26, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d D u B O IS , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2009) OP I NI ON D u B o is , D is tr i ct

Judge.Although Me toyer pla yed a le sser rolein the underlying na rcotics c onspiracy, he had a 1 criminal history

cate g ory of VI (base d on five previous convictions—four drugconvictions and one convic tion for simple assault) and w as determined to be a career offender (based on two of his previous drugconvictions). The se factors determined Metoyer’ s sentencingrang e for the underlying c onviction—151 to 188 months after an of fense -leve l reduc tion of three points for acc eptanc e of responsibility . 2 D efe ndant - A ppel l antFabi an M et oy erappea l s fr om the J udgm entof the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse y , w h ich re v o k e d h is p re v io u sly i m pos ed t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e forvi ol at i ons of the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r e l e a s e a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o t w e n t y- o n e m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n tt o b e f o l l o w e d b y a fi ft een- m ont h t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e conc l ude that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s sen tenc ing d iscreti o n an d w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt Ju d g m e n t. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe bene fi tof the part i es , w e w i l l onl ys um m ar i ze t hos e fa ct s w hi ch ar e r el evantt o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. M et oy er ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on i s bas ed on hi s J ul y16, 1996 gui l t ypl ea t o one c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c yt o p o s s e s s h e r o i n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 846, an off

ens e w i t h a 20- y ears t atut orym axi m um . O n N ovember7, 1996, the H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n sen tenc ed M etoy er to 1 5 1 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t and 3 y ea rs s upervi s ed r el eas e. M et oy ers erved appr oxi m at el y11 y ear s i n pr i s on and w as r el eas ed on 1 J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 7 .3

O n S e p tem b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 , M e to y e r a p p e a re d b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt a n d p led g u ilty t o fourvi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e: ( 1) comm i s s i on of anotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e— t heftof s ervi ces and fr aud; ( 2) comm i s s i on of anotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e— pos s es s i on of drug par aphernal i a, fai l ur e t o m ake pr operdi s pos al of drugs , and w ander i ng; ( 3) fai l ur e t o s ubm i tt o r andom drug s cr eeni ngs on ni ne occ as i ons betw een N ovember7, 2007 and M ar ch 5, 2008; and ( 4) fai l ur e t o not i fythe pr obat i on depart m ent w ith in 7 2 h o u rs o f

th e te rm in a tio n o f

h is e m p lo ym e n t o n F e b ru a ry 1 , 2 0 0 8 . T he fi r s tof thes e vi ol at i ons w as a G r ade B vi ol at i on w hi ch ca r r i ed a gui del i ne ran g e o f 2 1 to 2 7 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t i n M etoy er’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f V I. U . S. S. G . §§ 7B 1. 1( a) , 7B 1. 4( a) ( 2007) . T he r emai ni ng thr ee vi ol at i ons w er e G r ade C vi ol at i ons , w i t h a gui del i ne r ange of 8 t o 14 m ont hs i n cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryV I . I d. T he s t atut or ym axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entforM et oy er ’ s vi ol at i ons w as 24 m onths pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) . M et oy erw as al s o s ubj ectt o an addi t i onal t erm of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (h ); 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( C ). A tt he Sept ember2, 2008 hear i ng, defe ns e couns el s oughta bel ow - gui del i nes s ent ence i n t he r ange of 12 t o 18 m ont hs and ar gued aga i ns tthe i m pos i t i on of any a d d iti o n a l term o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se o n th e g ro u n d th a t M e to y e r h a d n o t p ro v e n h im se lf am en ab le t o the c o n d it ion s o f su p erv ised release . T h e g o v ern m en t r eq u ested the s tatu tory m a x im u m se n ten c e — 2 4 m o n th s in c a rc e ra tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d M e to y e r to 21 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on— 3 m ont hs above the hi gh end of de fenda nt ’ s s ugges t ed4

s ent enci ng r ange a nd 3 m ont hs bel ow the governm ent ’ s r eques t ed s ent ence . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt a ls o im p o s e d a 1 5 -m o n th te rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n appea l , M et oy erar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o appr opr i at el ycons i der t he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s , focus i ng on M et oy er ’ s pr i orand pr es ent cr i m i nal conductand fa i l i ng t o cons i derm i t i gat i ng fac t or s , s uch as M et oy er ’ s s t r ong r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s fami l y , hi s eff or t s t o s us t ai n empl oym ent , and hi s l i fel ong drug addi ct i on, par t i cul ar l yi t s r el at i ons hi p t o hi s offe ns es . M et oy eral s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s d e c isio n to im p o se a n a d d iti o n a l term o f su p e rv ise d re lea se w a s u n re a so n a b le in l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed att he r evoca t i on hear i ng w hi ch demonstr at ed that “M et oy er w as di ffi cultt o sup ervi se and thati m po si ng a new t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease w a s b o th e x c e s s iv e ly p u n itiv e a n d f u tile .” (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 1 8 .) II. 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. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . W e r evi ew the re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

s e n te n c in g d e te rm in a tio n s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U . S . 3 8 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). U ndert hi s s t andar d of r evi ew , the appe l l at e courtm us tens ur e thatthe di s t r i ct j u d g e g a v e “ me a n i n g f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n ” t o th e r e l e v a n ts e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a). U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 4 7 8 F .3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); see al so 1 8 U. S . C. § 3583( e) ( l i s t i ng r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s forpurpos es of m odi fy i ng orr evoki ng a5

defe ndant ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e) . D i s t r i ctcour t s ar e not , how ever , r equi r ed t o di s cus s eac h fac t orexpl i ci t l yorm ake f i ndi ngs as t o eac h fac t oras l ong as the r ecor d r efl ect s thatt he d is tr ic t c o u rt to o k th e f

a c to rs in to a c c o u n t a t s e n te n c in g . U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); B ungar , 4 7 8 F . 3 d at 54 3 . F u rth er, a sen tenc ing co u rt ’s “fa i l ur e t o gi ve mi t i gat i ng fac t or s t he w ei ghta def endantcont ends theydes erve [doe s not r endera] s ent ence unr eas onabl e. ” B ungar , 478 F. 3d at546. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded a br i ef, butadequa t e, di s cus s i on of the i s s ues pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng and i t s r eas ons fori m pos i ng the i ns t ant s ent ence . T hi s di s cus s i on i ncl uded cons i der at i on of the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the or i gi nal offe ns e and the vi ol at i ons ( § 3553( a) ( 1) ) , M et oy er ’ s hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs ( § 3553( a) ( 1) ) , t he nee d t o det erfur t hercr i m i nal conductand/ orvi ol at i ons ( § 3553( a) ( 2) ( B ) ) , and the nee d t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om addi t i onal cr i m es (§ 355 3(a) (2) (C )) . In l i gh tof these consi derat i on s and the argum ents present ed b ydefe nse couns el w i t h r egar d t o m i t i gat i ng fac t or s , the courtdeci ded t o i m pos e a s ent ence atthe l ow end of the gui del i nes r ange f ort he G r ade B vi ol at i on, and notbel ow i t . I n our j udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm eani ngful l ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and di d not a b u s e its d is c re tio n in a p p lyin g a n d w e ig h in g th o s e f a c to rs . C o n tr aryto d ef

en se c o u n sel’s asse rt ion s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id co n side r M etoy er’s ar gum ent s agai ns ti m pos i ng an addi t i onal t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng in c a rc e ra tio n . S p e c if

ica lly , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted : “I h e a rd w h a t [ d e f e n se c o u n se l] sa id6

about[M et oy er ’ s ] l ack of amenabi l i t yt o s upervi s ed r el eas e. I don’ tthi nk that ’ s a r eas on t o notputhi m on s upervi s ed r el eas e. I t ’ s . . . t i m e t o puthi m on s upervi s ed r el eas e and m ake s ur e thathe s ucce eds befor e he ge t s arr es t ed fors om ethi ng el s e. ” ( A pp. 43. ) T hat th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is a g re e d w ith M e to y e r’ s p o s itio n is n o b a s is f o r r e v e rs a l. III . Foral l of the for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as bot h pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. T hus , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt Ju d g m e n t.