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 3-24-2010 

# U SA v . J ohn P ark e 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 . 09-2742

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 . J o hn P arke r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1645. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1645NOT 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. 09- 2742

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OHN DOU GLAS P ARKER, A ppel l ant O n A ppeal fr om the Fi nal J udgm enti n a C rim in a l C a se o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 5- 08- cr - 00534- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a)

on M ar ch 12, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2010)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. Jo h n D o u g las P ark er a p p ea ls from an o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rto f th e E asternT he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. 1 W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . P ark er’s b ri ef

stat es th at he p led g u il tyo n D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e G o v ern m en t’ s 2 b ri ef stat es th at P ark er p led g u il tyo n D ec em b er 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 . (A p p ell ee ’s B r. 3 ; A p p ell an t’ s B r. 4 .) 2 D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i m pos i ng a s ent ence of 228 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed by fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, al ong w i t h a s peci al as s es s m entof $200 and r es t i tut i on o f $ 1 8 5 9 . P a rk e r a rg u e s th a t h is c a re e r o f f e n d e r se n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le a n d th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f a ile d to m e a n in g f

u lly c o n s id e r t h e re q u ir e d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) fac t or s and Parker ’ s r eques tfora bel ow - gui del i nes s ent ence i n l i ghtof the s t a l e n e s s a n d m i n o rn a tu r e o f t h e c r i m e s tr i g g e r i n g h i s “ c a r e e ro f f e n d e r ” d e s i g n a t i o n . We c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its se n ten c in g d isc re tio n , an d w e w ill a f f i r m. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w e w i l l di s cus s onl ythe r el evantl egal pr ece pt s and onl yt hos e fa ct s r el at i ng ther et o. O n S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 8 , P a rk e r w a s in d icte d in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia o n tw o c o u n ts o f

a rm e d ro b b e ry , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (d ). P a rk e r p led g u iltyin D ec em b er o f 2 0 0 8 , an d h e w as se n tenc ed o n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e a rm ed rob b eries w ere 2 co m m itted o n M ay2 4 , 2 0 0 8 an d Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 8 in A ll en tow n an d E asto n , P en n sy lvan ia. In bot h r obber i es , Par kerbr andi s hed a kni fe a nd gave the t el l era not e cl ai m i ng he had a gun po i nted t ow ards her. T he P res entence Invest i gati ve R epo rt(“PS R ”) s etP arker ’s off ense3

lev e l at 3 1 w ith a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V I, g e n e ra tin g a 1 8 8 -2 3 5 m o n th ra n g e . T h is r ange r efl ect s t he ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ement . Parkerfi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l on J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 . II. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 217- 228 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . O urr evi ew i s tw o- fol d. W e r evi ew for p roc ed u ral error u n d er the ab u se-o f-d iscreti o n stan d ard , en su ri n g the s en tenc ing co u rt gave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he r el evant18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s . I d. at217. W i t h r es pectt o pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s , the s ent enci ng courtneed not“di s cus s and m ake f i ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f the r ecor d m akes cl earthe courtt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e then r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on stan d ard . Id. at 21 8 . T h is final step is ve ryd ef ere n ti al as w e “ rec o g n ize tha t th e tri al co u rt i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G r eeni dge, 4 9 5 F .3 d 8 5 , 1 0 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T o re v iew f o r su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss , w e e n g a g e in “a de fer ent i al r evi ew of the r ecor d devel oped bythe di s t r i ctcour tt o det erm i ne w hether t he fi nal s ent ence , w her everi tm ayl i e w i t hi n t he perm i s s i bl e s t atut oryr ange, w as pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Schw ei t zer , 454 F. 3d 197, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he part ychal l engi ng the s e n t e n c e b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i t s u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . C o o p e r , 4 3 7 F . 3 d a t3 3 2 . We4

r equi r e di s t r i ctcour t s t o s etfor t h s uffi ci entr eas oni ng t o s at i s fyus thattheyhave “cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and [ha ve] a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng [thei r ] l egal deci s i on m aki ng author i t y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L es s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (qu o ti n g R it a v . U n it ed S tat es, 55 1 U . S . 3 3 8 , 3 5 6 (20 0 7 )). III . Par kerchal l enges hi s s ent ence as s ubs t ant i vel yfl aw ed, ar gui ng the G ui del i nes s ent ence w as gr eat ert han nec es s aryt o m eetthe s t atut orygoal s of s ent enci ng. H e ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notadequa t el yw ei gh the convi ct i ons tr i gger i ng the ca r eer offe nderenhanc ement– t w o pet t y“s t r eet - l evel ” drug s al es and a r obbery , al l of w hi ch occurr ed more t han 15 y ear s pr i ort o the s ent enci ng her e. Par kerar gues thatunderthe s ocal l ed “pa r s i m onypr ovi s i on, ” a s ent ence m us tbe “s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat erthan nece s s ary , t o compl yw i t h t he purpos es ” of s ent enci ng. 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have w ei ghed the ant i quat i on of hi s pas tconvi ct i ons , and he emphasi zes t hatt he goal of ca r eeroffe nders ent enci ng – “i ncapa ci t at i on t o pr ot ectthe p u b lic f ro m a d d iti o n a l cr im e s b yth e o f f e n d e r” – is b e st s e rv e d b ya les se r se n ten c e in h is cas e. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 11. ) Par kerm akes no addi t i onal ar gum ent s r egar di ng the § 3553( a) fact ors. Par kerhas a s ubs t ant i al cr i m i nal r ecor d. I n 1985, Par kerw as convi ct ed of thr ee gunpoi ntr obber i es . A ft ers ervi ng s ever al y ear s i n pr i s on, he w as r el eas ed on par ol e, w hi ch w as s ubs equent l yr evoked. PSR ¶¶ 53- 59. I n 1990, Par kerw as convi ct ed ofH e di d notpr ot es tt he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on s etfor t h i n t he Pr es ent ence 3 In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt. 5 at t empt ed r obberyfora home i nvas i on i n w hi ch a w om an s uffe r ed a f aci al i nj ury . A ft er se rv in g se v e ra l y e a rs in p riso n , h e w a s re lea se d o n p a ro le, w h ich w a s s u b se q u e n tly r evoked. PSR ¶¶ 62- 65. I n 1993, Par kerw as convi ct ed of tw o coca i ne di s t r i but i on fel oni es . A ft ers ervi ng atl eas ts even y ear s i n pr i s on, he w as r el eas ed on par ol e, w hi ch w as s ubs equent l yr evoked a tl eas tt w i ce, r es ul t i ng i n s ever al m or e y ear s of i ncar cer at i on. P S R ¶¶ 6 2 -67 . In b o th 2 0 0 5 an d 2 0 0 6 , P ark er w as c o n v ict ed o f m isde m ea n o r th ef t. In 2007, Par kerw as convi ct ed of c r i m i nal pos s es s i on of a w eapon. PSR ¶¶ 78- 79. Par ker ’ s s ol e cont ent i on ats ent enci ng w as thathi s undi s put ed s t atus as a ca r eer 3 offe nders houl d be mi t i gat ed bec aus e hi s pr i orqual i fy i ng convi ct i ons w er e mi nordrug convi ct i ons fr om 1993. T he D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n a l engthyand thor ough expl anat i on of i t s s ent ence . ( A pp. 73- 90. ) T he C our tt ook not e of Parker ’ s l ong cr i m i nal hi s t oryand o b se rv e d th a t th e se c rim e s w e re b o th se rio u s a n d “ n o t o u t o f th e o rd in a ryf

o r th is d ef en d an t, w h o h as m ad e c ri m e a w ayo f li fe sinc e h is y o u th.” (A p p . 7 3 , 7 5 . ) T h e C o u rt acknow l edged the purpos e of de t err i ng ot her s , as w el l as Par kerhi m s el f, fr om s uch seriou s crim inal co n d u ct. (A p p . 8 0 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rtw as n o t please d w ith P ark er’s a tte m p t to d o w n p la yh is c ri m e s , n o tin g th a t h e “ u n d e rp la y e d h is ro le in th e s e o f f e n s e s ,” a n d th a t o n e o f

th e v ic tim s w a s “ in d e e d te rr o ri z e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t’ s a c tio n s .” (A p p . 7 7 .) T he C our tnot ed thatPar ker ’ s combi ned cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s exce eded the amount6

neede d t o achi eve the hi ghes tpos s i bl e cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e underthe G ui del i nes . ( A pp. 7 6 .) T h e ju d g e re c o g n ize d th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e se n ten c e im p o se d , ca lli n g it

“ c o n sid e ra b le tim e ,” b u t u lti m a telyd e ter m in e d th a t “a les se r se n ten c e w o u ld d e p re c iate t he s er i ous nes s of thi s cr i m e and w oul d notadequa t el ypr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw , nor w oul d i tpr ovi de j us tpuni s hm ent . ” ( A pp. 79- 80. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d acknow l edge the age of Par ker ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , butdr ew an ent i r el ydi ffe r enti nfer ence fr om i t , fi ndi ng t he r ecor d t o cl ear l ydepi ctPar keras a ca r eerr eci di vi s t , w ho had “c hos en t o l ead a c ri m in a l lif

e s tyle [ .]” (A p p . 7 3 -7 4 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s expl i cat i on of the s ent ence evi nced s uffi ci entcons i der at i on of t he r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s , and Parkerhas notcarr i ed hi s bur den of s how i ng the s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e undert hi s s t atut oryfr amew or k. N o pr ocedur al err orw as comm i t t ed. I n ourr evi ew fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , w e mustens ur e the s ent ence

“ w a s p re m is e d u p o n a p p ro p ri a te a n d ju d ic io u s c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e re le v a n t f

a c to rs .” S c h w e itze r, 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 2 0 4 . T h e D istric t C o u rt c lea rlyc o n sid e re d P a rk e r’s a rg u m e n ts w ith reg ard to h is caree r of fe n d er status. T h e C o u rtac k n o w ledg ed P ark er’s lon g h ist o ry of cr i m i nal act i vi t yas w el l as fr equentpar ol e vi ol at i ons , not i ng the publ i c w i l l be further pr ot ect ed fr om Par kerdur i ng hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e bec aus e a r evoca t i on of pr obat i on w i l l r es ul ti n up t o t en more y ear s of i ncar cer at i on underthe i m pos ed s ent ence . ( A pp. 80 ( s t at i ng t hat“hi s t or ys ugges t s ” thatPar kerw i l l agai n vi ol at e par ol e) . ) T he j udge acknow l edged the s er i ous natur e of the cr i m es comm i t t ed and e xpr es s ed conc erns about7

Par ker ’ s at t empt t o dow npl ayt hem. T he C our tw as aw ar e of the s ever i t yof the s ent ence butdet erm i ned i tw as nece s s aryfort he goal of det err i ng cr i m i nal conduct . T he D i s t r i ct C our tgave due r egar d t o Par ker ’ s ar gum ent s ats ent enci ng, and w e ca nnots aythe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s upper - G ui del i nes s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the s er i ous nes s of the cha r ge, t he ef fec ton t he vi ct i m s , and Parker ’ s l ong hi s t oryof cr i m i nal a c tiv ity a n d p a ro le v io la tio n s . ***** W e have cons i der ed al l t he cont ent i ons pr es ent ed bythe A ppel l antand conc l ude t h a tn o f u r t h e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.