2006 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 5-25-2006 

# U SA v . B a ek 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 . 05-3323

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_2006

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 2006 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 a e k " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1040. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1040NOT 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- 3323 UN I TE D S TA TE S O F A ME RI CA , Appe l l ant

v. HYUN G P I L B AE K 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 r i m . 03- cr - 00233 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Ti m othyJ . Savage Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay9, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , S M ITH and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay25, 2006)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge H yung Pi l B aek w as s ent ence d t o 24 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entbythe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he governm entappea l s . Fort heT h e g o v e rn m e n t ca lcu late d th e lo ss b yid e n tify in g e v e rysto len a u to m o b ile p a rt in 1 B aek’ s pos s es s i on, i dent i fy i ng t he type of c arfr om w hi ch the partw as t aken, and then a d d in g th e e n tire b lu e -b o o k v a lu e o f th a t m a k e a n d m o d e l o f c a r. B a e k o b

jec ted to th is me t h o d o f

c a l c u l a t i o n , p r e f

e r r i n g t o o n l yi n c l u d e th e v a l u e o f p a r t s th a twe r e s t o l e n . He coul d not , how ever , pr ovi de a ba s i s fors et t i ng thatfi gur e at$50, 000. 2 r eas ons expl ai ned bel ow , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. I. B aek w as char ged w i t h one countof cons pi r acyt o unl aw ful l yal t er , r emove, or t amperw i t h vehi cl e i dent i fi cat i on num ber s ( “V I N s ”) , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371, and f o u rte e n c o u n ts o f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to se ll o r o th e rw ise d isp o se o f m o to r v e h icle p a r t s wi t h a l t e r e d , r e mo v e d , t a mp e r e d wi t h , o ro b l i t e r a t e d VI Ns , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2321( a) . I n J anuary2004, B aek e nt er ed a pl ea of gui l t y . A thi s change of pl ea he ar i ng, B aek a dm i t t ed t o bei ng a “l ar ge s cal e s el l erof s t ol en aut om obi l e part s ” begi nni ng i n the m id-1 9 8 0 s. (A p p . at 57 , 6 0 . ) A pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor t( “PSR ”) w as pr epar ed. T he PSR det erm i ned B ae k ’s t o tal o ff

en se lev el t o b e 2 7 w h ich, t o g ethe r w ith a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f I, r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i nes r ange of 70 t o 87 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A thi s M ay5, 2005 s ent enci ng hear i ng, B aek obj ect ed t o t he t ot al offe ns e l evel of 27, w hi ch w as bas ed on a lo s s c a lc u la tio n o f

b e tw e e n $ 1 m illio n a n d $ 2 .5 m illio n . See U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 2004) . B aek a r gued thatthe l os s s houl d be s etat$50, 000, w hi ch w ou l d resul ti n a tot al off ense l evel of 17 and a G uidel i nes range o f 24 t o 3 0 m on t hs. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as notper s uaded, and found thatthe governm ent“pr es ent ed3

s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to f

ix th e lo s s a t $ 1 .2 m illio n .” (A p p . a t 1 0 9 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen hea r d t es t i m onyfr om tw o of B aek’ s fr i ends and hi s w i fe, as w el l as fr om B aek h i m sel f, l i st ened t o the part i es’ argum ents , and proceed ed to di scuss s ent enci ng. T he C our tl i s t ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , and n o ted its ob li g ati o n to co n side r th em w h en d eterm ining the a p p rop ri ate se n tenc e. It a d d re ss e d th e iss u e o f

a p o ss ib le s e n ten c e d isp a rityw ith re sp e c t to B a e k ’s c o -d e f e n d a n t, J ohn B ut l er , w ho r ece i ved a s ent ence of 18 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our tnot ed that B u tler w a s “ les s c u lp a b le a n d c o n c e iv a b lyc o u ld h a v e b e e n , if n o t a v ictim , a v u ln e ra b le i nd i vidual w ho w as t aken adv antage of b y[B aek.] ” (A pp . at14 4. ) A l on g the sam e l i nes, t he C our texpl ai ned thati t“cons i der ed al s o t hat[B aek] w as an or gani zerof the oper at i on

. . . w ho enl i s t ed vol unt aryacc om pl i ces , the y oung, the af fl i ct ed, the dow n and out . ” (A p p . at 14 5 . ) T h e C o u rt a lso c o m m e n ted o n th e d u ra tio n a n d sc a le o f B a e k ’s c rim in a l co n d u c t, and not ed i n par t i cul art hatB aek ha d cont i nued t o engage i n cr i m i nal act i vi t yeven “ aft er t hr ee s ear ch w arr ant s w er e exe cut ed at[hi s ] pr oper t y , [and i tw as ] obvi ous thathe w as t he s ubj ectof a c r i m i nal i nves t i gat i on. ” ( A pp. at144. ) I tchar act er i zed Baek as “one of t he l ar gers el l er s of s t ol en vehi cl e part s i n t he Phi l adel phi a ar ea, ” and s t at ed thats om eone w ho deal s i n s t ol en ca rpar t s “coul d be cons i der ed one w ho encour ages the or i gi nal theft . ” (A p p . a t 1 4 5 .) F in a lly , the C o u rt “ n o te[ d ] th a t [ B a e k ] is a f a m ilym a n w h o lo v e s a n d c a re s f o r h isW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w B a e k ’s s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 3 7 4 2 (a )( 1 ). U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), am ended by U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , N o. 05- 1447, 2006 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 8075 ( 3d C i r . A pr i l 4, 2 0 0 6 ). 4 w i fe an d ch i l dren, ” bu tal so com m ented that “B aek h ad tw o si des, on e of w hich w as a m an dee pl ycomm i t t ed t o hi s chur ch and t o hi s comm uni t yand part i cul ar l yhi s fami l yand fr i ends , and on the others i de, he enga ged i n act i vi t yw hi ch he kne w , w i t houta doubt , w as w ro n g a n d c ri m in a l.” (A p p . a t 1 4 6 .) T he C ou rtt hen i m po sed a sentence of 2 4 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent— 46 m on t hs l ess t han the bot t om of the 70 t o 87 m ont h G ui del i nes r ange. T he governm entappea l s the s ent ence , ar gui ng t hati ti s unr eas onabl yl ow . W e not e thatthe governm enthas 2 w ith d ra w n tw o o th e r i s s u e s it in itia lly ra is e d o n th is a p p e a l. II. T h e re a re tw o a sp e c ts to o u r e v a lu a tio n o f th e re a so n a b len e ss o f

a se n ten c e . F irst, “w e must. . . be s at i s fi ed the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the r el evant[§ 3553] fac t or s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), am ended by U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , N o. 05- 1447, 2006 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 8075 ( 3d C i r . A pr i l 4, 2006) . A l t hough t he courtneed notm ake e xpl i ci tfi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the fa ct or s , t he r ecor d m us tcl ear l ys how t hat“the courtt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” I d. Second, “w e mustal s o as cert ai n w hetherthos e fa ct or s w er e r eas onabl yappl i ed t o t he“I n doi ng s o, w e appl ya def er ent i al s t andar d, the tr i al cour tbei ng i n t he bes tpos i t i on 3 t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence i n l i ghtof the part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” I d. at330. 5 c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c a s e .” Id . a t 3 3 0 .

3 W h ile th e D istric t C o u rt a d e q u a telyc o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 f a c to rs, w e sim p ly cannotas cert ai n w hethert hos e fa ct or s w er e r eas onabl yappl i ed t o t he fa ct s and c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th is c a se , fo r th e C o u rt u tterlyf a iled to e x p lain w h yth e d ra m a tic d e p a rt u re it g ra n te d f

ro m th e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s w a rr a n te d . C f . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at331 ( not i ng t hata s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange i s m or e l i kel yt o be unr eas onabl e) . I ndeed, t he C our t ’ s comm ent s i ndi cat ed thata s ent ence w i t hi n— perhaps e v e n to w a rd s th e to p o f

— th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p ro p ri a te . A c c o rd in g ly , alth o u g h w e d o n o t h o ld th a t th e 2 4 -m o n th se n ten c e im p o se d in th is c a se is n e c e ss a rilyu n re a so n a b le, w e w ill v a c a te th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g to al l ow t he D i s t r i ctC our tan oppor tuni t yt o pr ovi de i t s r eas ons forbel i evi ng thata s ent ence s o s i gni fi cant l ybel ow t he G ui del i nes r ange i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s cas e.