2008 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 5-21-2008 

# U SA v . W ell s 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 . 06-1456

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_2008

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 2008 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 . W e ll s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1185. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1185

### H o n . R ich ardD . C u d ahy , Un itedS tate s S e n i o r C ircu it * 

### Ju d g e f o r th e Un itedS tates C o urto f Ap p eals f

o r th e S ev enth Ci r c ui t , s i tt i ng by

de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 1456 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TY RO N E W ELL S, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00362 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

O r i gi nal l ySubm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary19, 2007 O n R em an d F rom the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt

February11, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R E N D E L L , and C U D A H Y , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2008)

___ OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m at t eri s befor e us on r emand bythe Supr eme C our t“forfur t her c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h to f Ki mbr o u g h v . Uni t e d St a t e s , 5 5 2 U. S. - - - - , 1 2 8 S. Ct . 5 5 8 , 1 6 9 L. E d . 2 d 4 8 1 (2 0 0 7 ).” W e lls v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 8 6 2 (M e m ) ( 2 0 0 8 ). I. A p p e llan t T yro n e W e lls p led g u iltyo n A p ril 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , to a c h a rg e o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se , i. e ., c ra c k c o c a in e . In h is s e n ten c in g m e m o ra n d u m , W e lls re q u e ste d a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e o n th e b a sis o f h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n a n d c e rta in r ehabi l i t at i ve ef

for t s he undert ook aft erbei ng i m pr i s oned. I n addi t i on, W el l s as s ert ed t hat“the courtm aycons i dert hati f the def endanthad bee n convi ct ed of drug tr aff i cki ng i n coca i ne as oppos ed t o coca i ne bas e” he w oul d have be en i n a l ow erG ui del i nes r ange, an d that “[ t] h e d ispa ri tyis glari n g . ” A p p . at 21 -22 . A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , h o w ev er, W el l s focus ed s ol el yon hi s m edi cal condi t i on and r ehabi l i t at i ve ef for t s . I n cons i der at i on o f th o se tw o c o n c e rn s, th e D istric t C o u rt d e p a rte d f ro m th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 1 0 to 262 m ont hs , and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 174 m onths i m pr i s onm enti ns t ead. W ell s ap p ea led th at be low -G u idelines sen tenc e, arg u ing that the D istri ct C o u rt e rre d b yf

a ili n g to c o n sid e r a ll o f

th e f a c to rs liste d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), f a ili n g to departfur t herdow nw ar d i n cons i der at i on of W el l s ’ m edi cal condi t i on, and byi m pos i ng a s ent ence gr eat ert han nec es s aryt o compl yw i t h the purpos e of s ent enci ng. I n es s ence , W el l s ar gued thatt he s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. A l t hough W el l s ’ appea l br i ef f ocus ed3

large lyo n h is he alth , h e a lso e x p li cit lyarg u ed that the D istri ct C o u rt“f ail ed to co n side r” t he ef fec tof the di s par i t ybetw een c r ack a nd pow dercoca i ne off ens es on t he G ui del i nes and that“D i s t r i ctC our t s have a dut yt o fas hi on a s ent ence thatdoes notadher e t o and adoptt hi s unr eas onabl e di s par i t y . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at11- 12. W hen thi s m at t erfi r s tcame befor e us , w e r ej ect ed W el l s ’ ar gum ent , s t at i ng that “court s need noti m pos e bel ow - gui del i nes s ent ence s t o r emedythe cr ack/pow dercoca i ne s ent enci ng di ffe r ent i al , ” U ni t ed St at es v. W el l s , 216 F. A pp’ x 204, 205 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) , “and the courtneed nots pend t i m e on ar gum ent s t hatar e cl ear l yw i t houtm er i t , ” i d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C o o p er, 43 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). W e c o n clud ed that the D istri ct C o u rt “meani ngful l ycons i der ed W el l s ’ s cont ent i ons and i m pos ed the s ent ence i tdi d i n an exer ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on. W e cons equent l yl ack f ur t herj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

h i s b e l o w - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e a n d a f f i r m . ” I d . We a l s o s t a t e d : “ We l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on nott o i m pos e a se n ten c e b e lo w th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s-r e c o m m e n d e d ra n g e (o r its d e c isio n n o t to i m pos e an e ven s hor t ers ent ence , w hen, as i n t he pr es entcas e, the courtdi d i m pos e a b e lo w -g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e ), so lo n g a s th e d istric t co u rt w a s a w a re o f a n d e x e rc ise d its di s cr et i on. ” I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. R ui z, 536 U . S. 622, 627 ( 2002) ; C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332- 33) ) . W e mustr econs i derourpos i t i on i n l i ghtof the r emand.4 II. T h e K im b ro u g h d e c isio n f o llo w e d b ytw o y e a rs th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w her e the C our tdecl ar ed thatthe S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s w e re n o lo n g e r m a n d a to ryb u t ad v iso rya n d th a t th e a p p lica b le G ui del i nes r ange i n t he part i cul arcas e w as one of the fa ct or s t o be us ed i n det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3553. A ppel l at e r evi ew i s governed bythe r eas onabl enes s s t andar d. I n K i m br ough, t he C our tcons i der ed w hethera s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange i s pers e unr eas onabl e “w hen i ti s bas ed on a di s agr eementw i t h t he s ent enci ng di s par i t yforcr ack a nd pow dercoca i ne off ens es . ” K i m br ough, 128 S. C t . at564 ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he C our ts t at ed that“i tw oul d notbe an a bus e of di s cr et i on fora di s t r i ctcour tt o concl ude w hen s ent enci ng a part i cul ardefe ndantthatt he cra ck /po w d er d ispa ri tyy iel d s a se n tenc e ‘g rea ter th an n ec essa ry ’ t o ac h ieve § 3 5 5 3 (a)’s purpos es , even i n a mi ne–run cas e. ” I d. at575. T he C our tr ever s ed the dec i s i on of the C our tof A ppeal s fort he Four t h C i r cui tthathad hel d a s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes ra n g e to b e p e r se u n re a so n a b le. In ste a d , the S u p re m e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yhom ed i n on the part i cul arci r cumst ance s of K im b rou g h ’s ca se a n d ac co rde d w eigh t t o the S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n ’s cons i s t entand emphat i c pos i t i on thatthe cr ack/pow derdi s par i t yi s atodds w i t h § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id . at 5 7 6 . T h e K im b ro u g h d e c isio n w a s f o re sh a d o w e d b yth is C o u rt’s d e c isio n in G unt er , 462 F. 3d at249, w her e w e hel d t hatthe di s t r i ctcour t s m ay , butar e notr equi r ed5

t o, i m pos e bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence s t o r emedythe di s par i t ybetw een c r ack a nd pow der coca i ne. U pon r ece i ptof the r emand fr om the Supr eme C our tw e s ol i ci t ed the vi ew s of cou nsel as t o the act i on t heysugg est ed w e t ake. C ou nsel for W el l s r epli ed thatbecau se t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on on N ovember1, 2007 r educe d t he s ent enci ng r anges for cr ack of fens es byt w o offe ns e l evel s , and on D ece m ber11, vot ed t o m ake the amendm ent t o the G uidel i nes retroact i ve, w e shou l d reduc e W el l s’ sent ence a n ad dit i on al 36 m on ths, r es ul t i ng i n a G ui del i nes r ange of 104 t o 139 m ont hs . T he r eas oni ng behi nd that re c o m m e n d a tio n is o b sc u re a n d w e re jec t it . T he governm ent ’ s r es pons e i s m or e nuanc ed. I tcandi dl yacknow l edges that i tcann ot s ayt hat the D i stri ctC ou rtcom pli ed w i t h G un t er and/ or K i m broug h, as tho se opi ni ons had noty etbeen de ci ded atthe t i m e of the r es ent enci ng ati s s ue her e. I tar gues th a t alth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co m m e n t o n th e c ra c k /p o w d e r d isp a rity , “th e re is n o re a so n to b e liev e th e c o u rt a c ted u n d e r th e m ista k e n b e lief th a t itlac k e d a u th o rityto co n side r th is fac tor. ” A p p ell ee s’ L ett er M em . at 6. Itthere fo re su g g ests that w e a ff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e w ith o u t re m a n d in g to th e D istric t C o u rt. B e f o re d e c id in g o n o u r d isp o sitio n , w e m u st f irst re v isit o u r e a rlier o p in io n in th is m at t er w here w e con cl ud ed thatw e l acked “j uri sdi ct i on t o co nsi der the reasonab l eness” of W el l s ’ bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t“meani ngful l ycons i der ed W el l s ’ s cont ent i ons and i m pos ed the s ent ence i tdi d i n an exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on. ” 2166

F . A p p ’x a t 20 5 . In G all v . U n it ed S tat es, 12 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt s t at ed that“[r ] egar dl es s of w hetherthe s ent ence i m pos ed i s i ns i de orout s i de the G ui del i nes r ange, t he appe l l at e courtm us tr evi ew the s ent ence underan abus e- ofdi s cr et i on s t andar d. ” Thi s i s a tw o- s t ep pr oces s . Fi r s t , the courtm us t“ens ur e thatthe di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or. . . . ” I d. Second, i f the “s ent enci ng deci s i on i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, the appe l l at e courts houl d t hen cons i dert he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” I d. T hus , t he Supr eme C our tconfi r m ed the di ffe r ence betw een the “p roc ed u ral[] so u n d [n ess]” o f a sen tenc e a n d it s “su b stan ti v e re aso n ab lene ss.” Id. It fol l ow s t hatw e err ed i n t he pr i orW el l s deci s i on i n hol di ng thatw e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on b a s e d o n R u iz (a p re -B o o k e r d e c is io n ) a n d C o o p e r. A ft er G al l , t he co urtm ust cons i dert he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d. . . . [I ] f the s ent ence i s out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange, t he courtm aynotappl ya pr es um pt i on of unr eas onabl enes s . I tm ay cons i dert he ext entof the devi at i on, butm us tgi ve due de fer ence t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t hatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, j us t i fythe e x ten t o f th e v a ria n c e . T h e f

a c t th a t th e a p p e llate c o u rt m ig h t re a so n a b ly h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t a d if f e re n t se n ten c e w a s a p p ro p ria te is in su f f icie n t to ju stif yre v e rsa l o f

th e d istric t co u rt. 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 . R etur ni ng t o t he ef

fec tof K i m br ough i n t hi s cas e, beca us e w e have no bas i s on w hi ch t o concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tunder s t ood t hati thad di s cr et i on t o cons i dert he c ra c k /co c a in e d isp a rityin im p o sin g th e se n ten c e o n W e lls, w e b e liev e it i s p ru d e n t to7

r emand t hi s cas e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ts o t hati tm ayr econs i deri t s s ent ence i n l i ghtof K im b rou g h . W e re co g n ize tha t i n U n it ed S tat es v . W ise, 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 9 -21 (3d C ir . 2008) , t hi s cour thel d t hatt he appr opr i at e pr oces s w as forthe def endantt o s eek re s e n te n c in g b a s e d o n th e a m e n d m e n t to th e G u id e lin e s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). W e not e thati n r emandi ng, w e do nots ugges tthatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as u n re a so n a b le. N o r d o w e b e liev e th a t ev e ryse n ten c in g c o u rt m u st e x p re ss ly ackn ow l edg e i t s consi derat i on of the crack/ cocaine dis pari t y . T his case i s unique b ecause t h e S u p r e m e C o u r th a s r e m a n d e d t o u s f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h to f K i m b r o u g h . We concl ude thati ti s appr opr i at e, i n l i ghtof thatm andat e, t o r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor i t s cons i der at i on. F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth , w e w il l r em an d this m att er to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r r econs i der at i on of the s ent ence .