2007 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 6-8-2007 

# U SA v . B lount 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 . 05-4062

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova 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 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B lount " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 982. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/982T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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 

### No. 05- 4062 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. KE I THBL OUNT , Appe l l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C ri m . N o . 9 8 -cr-00 4 1 2 -2 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay21, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 8, 2007)

OP I NI ON2

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge O n M ar ch 3, 1999, a j ur yfound A ppel l antK ei t h B l ountgui l t yon one countof i nt ent i onal l ydi s t r i but i ng appr oxi m at el yone ki l ogr am of cocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B l ountas a ca r eeroffe ndert o 264 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, appl y i ng t he 40- y ear s t atut or ym axi m um under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) . B l ountappea l ed, and on D ece m ber 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 , w e a f

f ir m e d th e ju d g m e n t in a n u n p u b lis h e d m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n . See U ni t ed St at es v. B l ount , 2 5 1 F . 3 d 1 5 4 (T ab le) (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 3 4 U .S . 9 0 8 (2 0 0 1 ). O n Sept ember23, 2002, B l ountfi l ed a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ecthi s s ent ence , ar gui ng t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on i n par tand deni ed i ti n par t , fi ndi ng t r i al couns el i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r eques ta s ent ence adj us t m entunderU . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 3 t o r efl ect t i m e thatB l ounthad s erved i n s t at e conf i nementpr i ort o hi s fede r al s ent enci ng. T he C our tor der ed a r es ent enci ng hear i ng “t o cons i derw hethera dow nw ar d departur e t o t ake in to a c c o u n t ti m e se rv e d in sta te in c a rc e ra tio n p rio r to th e f e d e ra l se n ten c in g is w a rr a n te d .” (A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . v o l. I I a t 2 6 7 .) O n A u g u st 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istric t C o u rt a w a rd e d B lo u n t m a x im u m c re d it fo r h is t i m e i n s t at e conf

i nementand amended the j udgm entt o r efl ectan adj us t ed s ent ence of 24 5 m on t hs and 28 day s, t o run co ncu rr ent w i th h i s und i scharged st at e sent ence. I n so d o ing , the C o u rtfo u n d that n eith er B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , norT 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, and w e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 3 U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , ent i t l ed B l ountt o a de novo re s e n te n c in g . I n t he al t ernat i ve, t he C our tdeni ed B l ount ’ s obj ect i ons t o t he pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on re p o rt. B lo u n t’s a d

ju ste d se n ten c e w a s w ith in th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 6 2 to 327 m ont hs . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 B l ountar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hatdrug quant i t yw as not an el ementof the off

ens e, t hus expos i ng hi m onl yt o t he 20- y ears t atut or ym axi m um under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) . H e al s o cont ends t hatt he C our tfai l ed t o gi ve m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T he governm entr es ponds t hatt he 40- y ears t atut or ym axi m um appl i ed bec aus e B l ount s t i pul at ed t o a drug quant i t yof 996 gr ams and be caus e he w as a ca r eeroffe nderunder U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 . It also n o tes th a t th e so le p u rp o se o f th e re se n ten c in g h e a rin g w a s to det erm i ne B l ount ’ s ent i t l ementt o cr edi tfort i m e s erved i n s t at e cus t ody , nott o r econs i der de novo h is p re v io u s ly-a f f ir m e d s e n te n c e . B eca us e B oo ker d o e s n o t a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to c a s e s o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w , Ll oyd v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 5 -16 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s concl us i on t hatB l ountw as notent i t l ed t o a de novo r es ent enci ng. H i s r enew ed cha l l enge t o t he C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the 40- y ears t atut orym axi m um and ca r eeroffe nder des i gnat i on, t her efor e, i s notbefor e us . E ven i f i tw er e, how ever , w e w oul d adher e t o our4

pr i orr ej ect i on of thi s ar gum ent . B l ount ’ s s t i pul at i on t o a drug quant i t yof 996 gr ams of c o c a in e , h is s tip u la tio n th a t th e c h e m is t’ s re p o rt e s ta b lis h in g th is q u a n tity w a s “ a c c u ra te ,” a n d h is a tto rn e y ’s re p re s e n ta tio n th a t “ th e q u a n tity o f th e d ru g s is n o t in d is p u te ,” reso lved an yp o ssible erro r un d er Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). See B la ke ly , 5 4 2 U . S . at 30 3 (“[ T ]he ‘st atuto rym ax im u m ’ fo r Appr endipurpos es i s t he m axi m um s ent ence a j udge mayi m pos e s ol el yon t he bas i s of the fa ct s r efl ect ed i n t he ju ryv e rd ict oradm i t t ed by the def endant .” (s o m e e m p h a s is o m itte d )) . B l ount ’ s r el at ed ar gum entconce r ni ng A m endment591 t o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w hi ch appl i es r etr oact i vel ypur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10, fai l s l ar gel yfor t he s ame r eas on. T hatamendm entr equi r es onl yt hatt he s ent enci ng cour tdet erm i ne the bas e off ens e l evel w i t h r efe r ence t o t he off ens e of c onvi ct i on. U nderA ppendi x A of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he bas e off ens e l evel appl i cabl e t o anyconvi ct i on under21 U . S. C . § 841( a) or( b) ( 1) - ( 3) i s § 2D 1. 1, t he pr ovi s i on appl i ed her e. W e ar e s at i s fi ed that t he D i s t r i ctC our tut i l i zed the corr ectoffe ns e gui del i ne, and, m or e t o t he poi nt , t hat B lo u n t’ s c a re e r o f

f e n d e r s ta tu s p ro p e rl yo v e rr o d e th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l. F i n a l l y , Bl o u n t ’ s a r g u me n tc o n c e r n i n g t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s i s u n a v a i l i n g . As n o te d , B ookerdoes notappl yher e. E ven i f i tdi d, how ever , w e w oul d fi nd t hatt he D is tr ic t C o u rt a d e q u a te ly ad d re s s e d a ll p e rt in e n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . W e w ill a f

f ir m .