2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-27-2008 

# U S A v . W yche
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-5114

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . W y che " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1378. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1378* Honora ble Petrese B. Tuc ker, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by

desig nation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

___________________ No. 06-5114 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. TH EO DO RE W. WYCH E, JR. Appellant

__________________ Ap pe a l f ro m th e Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Co ur t fo r t he Mid dle Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (D.C. Criminal Action No. 06-c r-00126- 1) District J udg e Sylvia H. Rambo

__________________ Submit ted under

Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a) Fe bruar y 7, 2008 Be fore : MCKEE and AMB RO, Circuit J udg es an d T UC KE R , Di s tri ctJ u d ge * 1 (Opinion filed: Marc h 27, 2008)

__________________ OPI NI ON

__________________

T UC KE R , Di s tri ctJ u d geTheodore W. W yche, Jr. appea ls the guideline sentenc e of 87 months’ inca rce ration imposed by

United States District J udg e Sylvia H. Rambo (“the District Court”). The issue befor e this Court is the District Court’s interpretation and a pplication of United States v. Gunter , 462 F.3d 237 ( 3d Cir. 2006), relating to the 100:1 cr ack/powde r coc aine r atio. For the re asons
se t f or th b e low , w e a ff

ir m. I
. The pe rtinent fac ts are a s follows. Over a two-we ek per iod, betwee n J anuar y and Fe bruar y 2006, Wy che ne g otiated and sold 95 grams of c rac k coca ine to fede ral investig ators in a total of four c ontrolled transa ctions. On April 5, 2006, Wy che, his older sister, and he r boy friend
wer e cha rg ed with conspira cy

to distribute more than 50 grams of c rac k coca ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. The Prese ntence Report (“ PSR ”) de termined that Wyche’ s base of fense level wa s 32. The re port adde d a two-point enha nceme nt for Wy che’ s leade rship role, pursua nt to U.S.S .G. § 3B1.1 ( c), a

nd three points were subtra cted f or ac cepta

nce of responsibility , pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3 E 1
. 1 ( a ) an d

( b )
. T h e t o t a l o f

f e n s e l e v e l w a s s e tat3 1 w i tha C r i m i n a l H i s t o r

y C at e g o r y o f I; thu s se tti ngthe Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e at 10 8 to 13 5 mo nth s. Both Wyche a

nd the g overnme nt filed objections to the PSR . The pa rties re ache d an
a g re e me nt whe re by

the g ov e rnme nt w ou ld n ot p re se nt e vid e nc e in s up po rt of the le a de rs hip enhanc ement (a

two-leve l enhanc ement) a nd Wy che w ould not seek a sa fety valve downw ard depar ture (a two-leve l reduc tion) pursuant U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)( 5). The D istrict Court conseque ntly

omitted the two-point leader ship enhanc ement. The adjusted leve l was 29, and wi th a Cr imi na l H ist or

y Cate g or y of Ithe Gu ide lin e ra

ng e wa s 8 7- 10 8 mo nth s. Duringthe sentenc ing he aring , in addition to revea ling the pa rties’ a g ree ment, Wy cheargued that a se ntence outside the Guidelines ra ng e would be a

ppropriate in light of Gunte r, which addr essed the 100:1 c rac k to powder r atio. 462 F. 3d 237. The District Court sentence d Wy che to 87 months’ inca rce ration, explaining that its sentenc e wa s at the low end of the Gu ide lin e ra

ng e fo r t he fo llo wi ngre a so ns : 1) Withi n the a two- wee k period, investig ators bought approxim ately 95 g rams of c rac k c oc a ine fr om Wyc he duri ngfo ur c ontr oll e d b uy s; 2 ) W ych e h as a c ri m i n al h i s t o ry n o tre fl ec t edi nh i s cr i m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry , i n cl u d i n g a criminal adjudication for deliver y of coc aine a

nd possession with intent to deliver coca ine and fi ve dr ivi ngun de r s us pe ns ion c onvic tio ns ; 3) F a ilure to c on sid e r t

hat Wyc he ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry wo uld e ff e c tiv e ly tr e at hi m th e same as a similarly

situated defe ndant with no prior conta ct with the law; 4) Wyc he ’s pr ior

c ri min a l hi sto ry

ra ise s th e lik e lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m; 5) Wy che ha d a somewhat difficult childhood; 6) Wyc he be ne fi tte d gre atly by the ple a a g re e me nt; and 7) The Court consider ed “the ratio betwe en cra ck and pow der c ocaine as a ba sis for sentenc ing at the low end of the guideline ra ng e.” On appe al, Wy che a

rgues that his sentenc e should be va cate d and re manded f or
re se nte nc ing . In s um, Wyc he argue s th at hi s se nte nc e do e s n ot m e e t th e re a so na ble ne ss standards r equire d by

United States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. 220, 226-62 (2005) . Whil e Wy che
conce des that the sente nce is at the low end of the applicable guideline ra ng e, he c ontends that wh e re the se nte nc e inc or

po rate s th e c ra c k c oc a ine Gu ide lin e , it is unr e a so na

ble . A c c or din gto Wy che, the Court’s decision in Gunter a nd repor ts prepar ed by

the United States Sentenc ing Commi ssion ex plain that the 100:1 cra ck/powder coca ine ratio fails to meet sentenc ing objectives of 18 U .S.C § 3553(a). Wy che c ontends the re cord doe s not clear ly indicate that the District Court understood and r easona bly discharg ed its obligation to consider all re levant sec tion3553(a) fac tors in imposi ngits sentence.

Applying a

defe rential standa

rd, this Court will review the sente nce by the District Court for r easona

bleness pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 3742(a) (1). United States v. Cooper , 437 F.3d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 2006). Th e Di str ic t Co ur

t pr op e rl y a pp lie d th e thr e e -s te p p ro c e ss s e t f or th b y thi s Co ur t in Gunter a nd proper ly

exercised its sentenc ing disc retion. 462 F . 3d 237. In Gunter, this Court explained two ty

pes of B ooker e rror s: 1) relianc e upon judg e-f ound fac ts, other than prior
c onvic tio ns to e nh anc e the de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e be yon d th e statut or y min imum, c omm on ly
re fe rr e d to a s “ c on sti tut ion a l e rr or ” ; and 2) a pp lic atio n o f t

he Gu ide lin e s ma

nd ator ily , c omm on ly ref err ed to as “ non-constitutional error .” Gunter , 462 F. 3d at 247. In the intere sts of avoiding the se e rr or s, thi s Co ur

t in str uc te d d istri c t c ourt s to fo llo w a thr e e -s te p s e nte nc ingpr oc e ss: (1 ) C ourt s mu st c ontin

ue to c a lc ulate a

de fe nd ant’ s Guid e lin e s se nte nc e pr e c ise ly as they would have be fore Booke r. (2) In doing so, district c ourts must “formally rul[e] on the motions of both parties and stat[e] on t he re cord whether they are g rantinga depa

rture a nd how that depar ture a ffe cts the Guidelines c alculation, and tak[e] into account [our] Circuit’s pre- Booke r case law which c ontinues to have a dvisory forc e.” (3) F inally , district courts ar e re quired to “e x erc ise[] [t heir] discretion by c on sid e ri ngthe re le va

nt [§ 35 53 (a )] f

a c tor s” in s e tti nga

se nte nc e re g ard le ss whether it varies fr om the sentenc e ca lculated unde r the Guide lines. I d. at 247 (c itations omi tted). “Post-Booke r, a se ntencingcourt e rrs whe n it believes that it has no discre tion to consider the cr ack/powde r coc aine diff ere ntial incorporated in the Guidelines—but not demande d by 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 (b )— a s si mpl y a dv iso ry at st e p thre e of

the po st- B oo ke r s e nte nc ingpr oc e ss (imposing the a ctual sente nce a fter c onsideringthe re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors). . . . .” I d. at 249. Her e, no such e rror

occur red.The District Court spec ifically stated its consideration of the disparity betwee n cra ck and powder as a ba sis for sentenc ing on the low end of the Guidelines. Howe ver, it is under “ no obligation to impose a se ntence below the Guide lines solely on the basis of the c rac k/powder
coca ine diffe rential.” I d. Fur ther, c ontrary

to Wy che’ s sugg estion, the District Court is not require d to “categ orica lly reje ct” the 100:1 r atio. The re cord r efle cts that the District Court consider ed all re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm.

_____________________________________________