2003 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 9-16-2003 

# U S A v . M e r ced 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 . 02-3896

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive 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 2003 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 at ion
" U SA v . M e r c e d " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 270. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/270NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No: 02-3896

_______________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. RICHARD MERCED Appellant

App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. C riminal Ac tion No .01-cr-0042 1-1 Distri ct Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hay den
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on June 2, 2003 Be for e: A LIT O, R OT H a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led Septe mber 16, 2003)

O P I N I O N
ROTH , Circ uit J udge; On June 21, 20 01, R ichard M erced and C arme n B urgo s flew from Lim a, Peru , to

### 2

Newark, New Jersey . On arri val, during a r outine e xaminati on by the United States Custom Service, Merced and Burgos clai med that t hey were married and t

raveli ng on vacati on. They said t

hat the y had pac ked thei r own suitc ases and the content s of the four suit cases bel onged to the m. The Customs Servi ce examined the suitcases and di scovered that a ll four

had false metal bottoms. Each s uitca se contai ned about 500 grams of cocaine. In tot al, the lugga ge contai ned 1,833. 7 grams of cocai ne. Merced later admitted that heintende d to deli ver the c ocaine t o a person i n New Y ork City in exchange for $4,000. On June 26, M erced and B urgo s we re indic ted in f edera l court o n three coun ts: One count of conspi racyto import more than 500 grams of cocaine, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C. § 9 63 (2 001 ) and two coun ts char ging M erced and B urgo s, individ ually, with importing m ore than 50 0 gram s of coca ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C . § 952 (a) (20 01). On February 5, 2002, Merced pl ed guilt y t o the conspi racycount. The presentence rep ort recomm ended a total offense level of 31 and a crim inal history category of V I, which co rresponds to a guidelines se ntencing ran ge of 1 88 to 23 5 mo nths. In calculati ng this sentencing range, t he Probation Office determined that Merced w as a
career offender, pursuant

to U.S.S. G. § 4B1.1 (2001) bec ause the of fense of convi ction invo lved a contro lled sub stance , Me rced w as 18 years or o lder at th e time of its commission, and he had been convi cted of two crimes of viol ence, one convi ction f or
arme d rob bery w ith sexu al assa ult and one f or sex ual ass ault.

### 3

Before sent encing, Merced moved for a downward departure based on the conditi ons of his pre-trial c onfinement and on hi s all egati on that t he guidel ines se ntenci ng range overs tate d the rel ativeseri ousness of hi s curre nt offense, parti cularl y i n light of the lesse r sent ence of impri sonment rece ived byBurgos. The Dist rict Court denie d the motion and sentenced Merced to 188 months of impris onment and five y ears of sup erv ised relea se. M erce d ap pea led. We have juris dicti on to hear t his appealpursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a )(1-2) . While we la ck juri sdiction to hear an appealfrom a dist rict court’ s fail ure to exe rcis e its discr etion to depart downward, we have j urisdi ction ove r an appeal where t

he dist rict court failed to depart downward becauseit bel ieved i t lac k legal authori ty to consi der such a departur e. See Un ited Sta tes v. G eorg iadis , 933 F.2d 1219, 1222 (3 d Cir. 199 1). We e xercise plena ry review ove r allegations that a district court imposed a sentence based on a mis take of l aw or an incorrect appl ication of the Sen tenc ing Gu ideli nes . United Stat es v. Tor res , 251 F .3d 13 8, 145 (3d C ir. 2001 ); United Statesv. Higgi ns , 967 F.2d 841, 844 (3d Cir. 199 2). M erced claim s on a ppea l that the D istrict Co urt erred in den ying the m otion to depart be cause Merced’s cr iminalhist ory category over stated his pas t cri minal conduct und er U .S.S.G . § 4A 1.3. C ontrar y to this con tention , how ever, M erced did n ot argu e in the District

Court that his cri minal historyoverstated his pastcriminal conduct . The record reflect s that

although Merced ci ted U.S.S. G. § 4A1.3, he cl aimed that he deserved

### 4

a do wn wa rd d epa rture bas ed o n th e dis par ity betw een Bu rgo s’s a nd h is sen tenc ing ran ges . He did n ot argu e in the Distric t Cou rt that his c rimina l history cate gory ov er-stated his pas t crim inal c ond uct. The Distric t Cou rt prop erly refuse d to d epart o n the b asis tha t there w as a d isparity betw een M erce d’s a nd B urg os’s sen tenc es. See United St ates v. Higgins , 967 F.2d 841, 845 (3d Cir. 1992) (hol ding that disparity

of sentenc es between co- defendants is i mproper basis f or do wn wa rd de partur e); United Stat es v. Joy ner , 924 F.2d 454, 460 -61 (2d C ir. 1991). A ccordingly, we f ind that the D istrict Court did not err in de nying M erced’s departure m otion based on senten cing disparity betwee n M erced’s and Burgo s’s
sen tenc es. Because Merced did not rais e in the Distri ct Court t he objection that

his criminal hist ory category over -stated his past criminalconduct and, indeed, did not pr offer any evide nce th at wo uld su ppo rt such a con clusion , the D istrict Co urt w as no t autho rized to de pa rt on t ha t b as is . Mo re ove r, in vi ew o f the na tu re of Mer ce d’ s p ri orco nvi ctio ns , w e find no b asis f or a sser ting suc h a c laim con cern ing his c rimi nal h istor y in the first p lace
. For the above reasons, we will affi rm the judgment of sentenc e of the Dist rict Co urt.

### 5

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing Opinion.
By the C ourt,

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit

Judge