2010 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 7-15-2010 

# U SA v . K ei sh a Ande rson 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 . 10-1757

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Kei sh a Ande r s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 950. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/950NOT 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. 10- 1757

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KE I S HA C . ANDE RS ON, 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 08- cr - 226- 2) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. G us t ave D i amond

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y13, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R ., C i r cui tJudges . Fi l ed: J ul y15, 2010

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . K ies h a A n d e rso n p led g u iltyto tw o c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te and di s t r i but i on of fi ve gr ams orm or e of c r ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841 and 18 U . S. C . § 2. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctofA ccor di ng t o t he PSR , A nder s on’ s bas e off ens e l evel w as 30, beca us e the off ens es 1 in v o lv e d a c o m b in e d d ru g w e ig h t o f 7 9 .9 g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e , s ee U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 5) . T hatbas e off ens e l evel w as r educe d bythr ee poi nt s foracc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility, p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). 2 Penns y l vani a s ent ence d hert o t en mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm enton eac h count , t o run concurr ent l y , t o be fol l ow ed byfoury ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e on ea ch count , al s o t o run concurr ent l y . A nder s on chal l enges hers ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed hera mi norr ol e r educt i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, and thather s e n t e n c e i s p r o c e d u r a l l ya n d s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound A gr and j ur yi n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned a s i x- count i ndi ctm entagai ns tA nder s on and D amond G oggi ns , char gi ng them j oi nt l yi n t w o of the count s – t he ones t o w hi ch A nder s on pl ed gui l t y– and cha r gi ng onl yG oggi ns i n t he r emai ni ng count s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed A nder s on’ s r eques tforpr epar at i on of a pr es ent ence r epor t( “PSR ”) i n advanc e of a hear i ng on a pr opos ed pl ea a gr eement . I n t hat PSR , t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce c al cul at ed an a dvi s orySent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 70- 87 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, resu lt ing fro m a total of fe n se lev el of

2 7 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ryo f I. E ac h o f th e c ri m es w ith w h ich A n d erso n w as c h arg ed ca rri ed a statuto ry 1 m in im u m o f

f iv e y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t.3

Att h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , An d e r s o n e n t e r e d a n o p e n p l e a o f g u i l t yt o th e two c o u n ts a g a in st h e r. T h e D istric t C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e c a lcu late d in t he PSR and the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s butacc or ded A nder s on the bene fi tof a s afe t yval ve r educt i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . §§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) and 5C 1. 2, ther eby p erm itti n g a se n tenc e b elow the s tatu torym inim u m . In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed A nder s on’ s r eques tt o cal cul at e herbas e off ens e l evel byus i ng the t abl e for pow dercoca i ne and notcr ack c ocai ne. A s a r es ul t , A nder s on’ s bas e off ens e l evel w as re d u c e d to 1 6 . See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 12) . W i t h t he tw o- poi nts afe t yval ve r educt i on an d a tw o -po int r ed u cti o n fo r ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ityu n d er U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (a), A n d erso n ’s t o tal o ff

en se lev el w as c alcu lat ed at 12 . C o m b ined w ith h er c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof I , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcal cul at ed heradvi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a t10 t o 16 m on t hs. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d A nder s on t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 10 m onths on each c ou nt, t o run co ncu rr entl y , t o b e foll ow ed b ya fou r- y ear t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease on each c ou nt, al so t o run co ncu rr entl y . A nd ers on no w app eal s.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, w hi ch gr ant s t o t he 2 “di s t r i ctcour t s of the U ni t ed St at es . . . or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on, excl us i ve of the court s of the St at es , of al l offe ns es agai ns tt he l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” 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. 4 I I . D i s cus s i on 2 A s ear l i ernot ed, A nder s on cl ai m s thathers ent ence s houl d have be en ca l cul at ed by t aki ng acc ountof w hats he cl ai m s w as herm i norr ol e i n t he cr i m es . She al s o s ay s thather s e n te n c e is p ro c e d u ra lly a n d s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes pr ovi de thata def endant ’ s offe ns e l evel m aybe r educe d byt w o l evel s “[i ] f the def endantw as a mi norpart i ci panti n anycr i m i nal act i vity . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2(b). A “m i no r par t i ci pan t ” i s “a defen dan t. . . w ho i s l ess cul pabl e than mostot herpar t i ci pant s butw hos e r ol e coul d notbe des cr i bed as m i ni m al . ” I d. cmt . n. 5. A nder s on cont ends t hats he qual i fi es as a mi norpart i ci pant , and thatthe D is tr ic t C o u rt th e re f

o re e rr e d in d e n y in g h e r a re d u c tio n p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . “W e empl oya mi xed s t andar d of r evi ew w hen cons i der i ng w hethera def endantw as ent i t l ed t o a dow nw ar d adj us t m entas a mi norpart i ci pant . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Isa za -Za

p a ta , 1 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). “W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew w h ere the d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of a dow nw ar d adj us t m enti s bas ed pr i m ar i l yon a l egal i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” I d. ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. B i er l ey , 9 2 2 F . 2 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . “ Ho we v e r , wh e r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n r e s t s o n f a c tu a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n s , we r evi ew forcl earerr or . ” I d.5

A n d e rso n a rg u e s f

irst th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d leg a l er ro r w h e n it det erm i ned thatbeca us e s he ac t ed as a drug di s t r i but or , “ther e w as nothi ng m i norabout h er ro le, ” a n d “[ s]he w as a n instrum en tal , integ ral pa rto f [ the] o p era ti o n . ” (A p p . at 73 . ) A nder s on cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a l egal det erm i nat i on thatdrug di s t r i but or s , as a ca t egoryof cr i m i nal s , ar e per se no tenti t l ed to m i no r r ole r edu ct i on s, a n d th a t th is d e te rm in a tio n c o n tr a v e n e s o u r p re c e d e n t. S e e Isa za -Za p a ta , 148 F. 3d at238 ( expl ai ni ng t hat“bec aus e the det erm i nat i on of w hethera def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a mi nor r ol e adj us t m enti s hi ghl ydepende nton t he fa ct s of part i cul arcas es . . . a mechani cal a p p lica tio n o f

th e g u id e lin e s b yw h ich a c o u rt a lw a y s d e n ies m in o r ro le a d ju stm e n ts to cou ri ers becau se theyare ‘ essent i al , ’ r egardl ess of t he p art i cularfact s or ci rcum st ances” is error). A nder s on’ s ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve, as i tr el i es on s el ect ed and out - of- cont ext s t at ement s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tdur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. A ful l err eadi ng of the hear i ng t r ans cr i ptr evea l s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notr el yon a per se rul e that di s t r i but or s ar e notent i t l ed t o m i norr ol e r educt i ons . R ather , the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed on t he r ecor d fac t s i n deny i ng A nder s on t he r educt i on, expl ai ni ng thatA nder s on “made cont actw i t h t he per s on w ho w as pur chas i ng, ” “pr ovi ded the per s on w ho w as pur chas i ng w i t h t he drugs , ” and “ acc ept ed funds forthe drugs , ” and not i ng that“[a ] tthe mom ents he w as a cti v e in th is cri m e, he r co -de fe n d an t w asn ’tev en o n the s ce n e.” (A p p . at 74 . ) In l i ghtof thi s expl anat i on, i ti s cl eart hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed “the natur e of the6

d e f e n d a n t’s re latio n sh ip to o th e r p a rticip a n ts, th e im p o rta n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s a c tio n s to t he s ucce s s of the ventur e, and the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of the natur e and s cope of t he cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Headl ey , 923 F. 2d 1079, 1084 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . T he C our tdi d noterri n det erm i ni ng t hat , bas ed on thes e fa ct s , A nder s on w as “a pr i nci pal par t i ci pant ” i n t he cr i m e of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, and di s t r i but i on of, cr ack c o c a in e . (A p p . a t 7 4 .) A n d e rso n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h e r a m in o r ro le re d u c tio n b e c a u se th e d ru g d e a ls w e re o rg a n ize d a n d c o n tro lled b yG o g g in s. S h e a ss e rts t hats he w as r el at i vel yuni m por t antt o t he s cheme, di d notknow the s cope of the e n te rp ri s e , a n d d id n o t r e c e iv e a s ig n if ic a n t e c o n o m ic b e n e f

it f ro m h e r i n v o lv e m e n t. A g a in w e d isa g re e w ith h e r c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f th e f a c ts. T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t a s i gni fi cantamount of cr ack c ocai ne ( 79. 9 gr ams) w as entrus t ed t o A nder s on; s he conduct ed tw o s epar at e exc hanges overa per i od of thr ee mont hs ; s he conf i r m ed pr i ces fort hos e exc hanges ; s he w as entrus t ed w i t h col l ect i ng cas h paym ent s ; and s he w as i ndeed pai d forhereff

or t s . I n l i ghtof thos e fa ct s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng A n d e rs o n a m in o r r o le re d u c tio n . S e e , e.g ., U n itedS ta tes v . B a u tista , 532 F. 3d 667, 674 ( 7t h C i r . 2008) ( no m i norr ol e r educt i on w her e def endantw as a trus t ed partof the drug o p e ra tio n ); Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 2 5 0 F .3 d 8 1 1 , 8 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (n o m in o r ro le r educt i on w her e def

endantw as engage d i n i l l egal act i vi t i es on m ul t i pl e day s and in ter a c ted w ith m a in f

ig u re in o p e ra tio n ); U

nited S tates v. L ockh art , 37 F. 3d 1451, 14557

( 10t h C i r . 1994) ( no m i norr ol e r educt i on w her e def endantexpec t ed t o be compens at ed fo r his role in th e il lega l con d u ct). T urni ng t o A nd ers on ’s chall eng e t o the r easona bleness of h er s entence, w e asses s the c h all en g e in tw o step s. W e b eg in b yd eterm ining w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed any“s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , s uch as . . . fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). If a se n ten c e is “ p ro c e d u ra lly s o u n d ,” w e th e n a s k w h e th e r i t is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . I d. “The abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d appl i es t o bot h ourpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s i nqui r i es . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c). A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s “fa i l [ur e] t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s ” ca n cr eat e a p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 543 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng G a ll , 552 U . S. at51) . I ndeed, w e have hel d t hatthe t ouchs t one of r eas onabl enes s i s w hethert he r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th o s e f a c to rs . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). H ow ever , w e have al s o m ade i tcl earthat“[t ] her e ar e no magi c w or ds thata di s t r i ctj udge m us ti nvoke w hen s ent enci ng . . . . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “A sen tenc ing co u rtn ee d n o t m ak e f ind ing s as to ea ch fa ctor if the rec o rd ot herw i s e makes cl eart hatt he courtt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ount . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).T her e i s no m er i tt o A nder s on’ s cont ent i on thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tfocus ed on the 3 ser i ou sness of drug c ri m es gene ral l yand the n eed f or i m pri sonm ent t o d et er and p un i sh offe nder s as a w hol e butfai l ed t o addr es s her“part i cul arar gum entthateven though drug deali ng i s ser i ou s, her ci rcum scr i bed rol e m ade thi s drug of fense co m parat i velyl ess s er i ous , ” and he r“pos i t i ve evi dence puton t hati ncar cer at i on w as notnece s s aryt o det er [ h e r] s p e c if

ic a lly.” (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 3 7 -3 8 .) A g a in , th e re c o rd in d ic a te s o th e rw is e . In a d d iti o n , w e re

jec t A n d e rso n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt b a se d its

8 A nder s on cont ends t hathers ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i der“the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e, ” as r equi r ed under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 4) , and fa i l ed t o addr es s herar gum entthata non- i ncar cer at i on sen tenc e w as su ff

ici en tl ysev ere . T h e re co rd in d icates o therw ise. T h e D istri ct C o u rt hear d and cons i der ed ar gum entfr om defe ns e couns el thatA nder s on di d “notdes erve a pr i s on s ent ence i n t he w ayof j us tpuni s hm ent , ” and that“a s ent ence of hom e det ent i on” w o u ld b e m o re a p p ro p ria te ( A p p . at 8 1 -8 4 ), b u t th e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, fi ndi ng t hatA nder s on’ s hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , the s er i ous nes s of heroffe ns e, the need f ort he s ent ence t o pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw , and the i nt er es ti n det err ence c o u n se led in f

a v o r o f a se n ten c e o f

in c a rc e ra tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted sp e c if ica lly t hat“i f a . . . non- i ncar cer at i on s ent ence w er e i m pos ed i n t hi s cas e, i tw oul d have a n adver s e i m pacton t he comm uni t yw i t h r egar d t o i t s abi l i t yt o encour age ordet erthe comm i s s i on of a c r i m e. ” (I d. at90. ) T he r ecor d s how s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed i m pos i ng a non- i ncar cer at i on s ent ence i n r es pons e t o defe ns e couns el ’ s ar gum entbut d e c i d e d o n a t e r m o f

i mp r i s o n me n tb a s e d u p o n th e f a c t o r s e n u me r a t e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553. W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatA nder s on’ s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. 3s ent enci ng deci s i on on herbar e arr es tr ecor d, and that , bas ed on ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B erry , 553 F. 3d 273, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , thi s w as err or . I n B erry , the s ent enci ng co u rtsp ec u lat ed , w ith o u t any thing in the rec o rd e x p lai n ing w h yp ri o r ch arg es w ere d ism iss e d , tha t “th e re a so n [ th e d e f e n d a n ts d id n ’t] h a v e a n ya c tu a l ad u lt co n v ictio n s is beca us e of the br eakdow ns i n t he court– i n t he s t at e courts y s t em – and notbeca us e of i nnocenc e. ” I

d. at27 7. T he sentenci ng cou rtthen t oo k int o acco un tthat the d efen dan t s’ “ c ri m in a l h is to ry p o in ts w e re p ro b a b ly u n d e rs ta te d ” in f a s h io n in g th e irs e n te n c e s . I d. at 2 7 9 . W e stated that itw as “ clea r th at th e se n tenc ing co u rtreli ed , at l ea st i n p art, o n b are arr es tr ecor ds i n i m pos i ng a more l engthyt erm of i m pr i s onm ent , ” and thus w e r emanded forr es ent enci ng, hol di ng t hat“a ba r e arr es tr ecor d – w i t houtm or e – does notj us t i fyan assu m p ti o n that a d ef

en d an t has co m m itted o ther c ri m es a n d itthere fo re c an n o t sup p o rt i 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 . ” I d. at 28 4. H ere, t he d i scussi on of A nd ers on ’s arr estrecor d arose on l yi n respon se t o d efen se c o u n se l’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e r n u m e ro u s c o n v ictio n s f o r d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t w e re th e re su lt o f se lf-de fe n se. (A p p . at 83 , 8 7 -88 . ) T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t r elyo n A n d erso n ’s bar e arr es tr ecor d i n i m pos i ng a more l engthyt erm of i m pr i s onm ent . I ns t ead, i ti s cl ear t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the § 3553 fa ct or s i n i m pos i ng a pr i s on s e n te n c e . 9 W e ar e l i kew i s e s at i s fi ed thatthe s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. A s ent ence fa il s the testo f su b stan ti v e re aso n ab lene ss o n lyw h en “n o rea so n ab le sen tenc ing co u rt w oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpart i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 ; se e a lso G a ll , 552 U . S. at51 ( “The fac t t hatt he appe l l at e courtm i ghtr eas onabl yhave c oncl uded thata di ffe r ents ent ence w as appr opr i at e i s i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fya r ever s al of the di s t r i ctcour t . ”) . T he s ent ence i m pos ed w as att he extr eme l ow end of A nder s on’ s G ui del i nes r ange, aft err efl ect i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s t hought ful adj us t m entof thatr ange dow n fr om the much hi gherl evel A nder s on had fa ced. T he s ugges t i on thathers ent ence i s bey ond t he boundar i es of reas on ableness r efl ect s the d efen dan t ’s profo un d m i sund ers t and i ng of those bo un dari es.10

I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rt.