2009 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 2-10-2009 

# U SA v . G i l-H e rn ande z 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 . 08-1125

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . G i l -H e rn andez " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1889. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1889T he H onor abl e M arvi n J . G arbi s , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof M ary l and, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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

____________ N o. 08- 1125

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSE G I L- HER NA ND EZ, 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 f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00227) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M . G ol den

____________ A r gued J anuary6, 2009 B e f o re : C H A G A R E S , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a nd G A RB I S, D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: February10, 2009) R o b ert E p stei n (A rgu ed ) D efe nderA s s oci at i on of Phi l adel phi a Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 6 0 1 W a ln u t S tre e t T h e C u rtis C e n ter , S u ite 5 4 0 W e st Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 A t t or ney f

orAppel lant2

R obertA . Z auzmer( A r gued) A ni t a D . E ve O f f i c e o f U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y Sui t e 1250 6 1 5 C h e stn u t S tre e t Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . J os e G i l - H ernandez appea l s hi s s ent ence forr eentryaft erdeport at i on i n vi ol at i on o f 8 U. S . C. § § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i rm. I. A s w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the pr ocedur al cont extand fa ctual hi s t oryof the ca s e, w e r ecountonl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our deci s i on. G i l - H ernandez ent er ed an ope n gui l typl ea i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia to a sin g le c o u n t o f re e n trya f

ter d e p o rta tio n in vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . U nderhi s pl ea, G i l - H ernandez r es erved the r i g h tt o c h a l l e n g e th e i mp o s i t i o n o f a s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n tu n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ) a n d U S S G § 2 L 1 .2 (b ). A c c o rd in g to th e P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt,T h e b ase o ff en se lev el w as 8 p u rsua n t t o U S S G § 2 L 1 . 2 (a). T h e D istri ct C o u rt 1 then appl i ed a 16- poi ntenhanc ementbas ed on G i l - H ernandez ’ s pr evi ous deport at i on for pr i orconvi ct i on fora drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e forw hi ch the s ent ence i m pos ed exc eede d 13 m onths . U SSG § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . G i l - H ernandez then r ece i ved a thr ee- poi nt r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . U SSG § 3E 1. 1. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthe al l eged vi ol at i on of fe der al 2 i m m i gr at i on l aw s pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overan appe al o f G i l - H e rn a n d e z ’ s s e n t e n c e u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) . We re v ie w p ro c e d u ra l e rr o rs in s e n te n c in g f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 586, 591 ( 2007) . Pr ocedur al err ori ncl udes a s ent enci ng court ’ s r efus al t o cons i der th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . Id . at597. 3 G i l - H ernandez had an of fens e l evel of 21 and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I V . N ei ther 1 G il -H ern an d ez n o r th e G o v ern m en t objected to this ca lculati o n , an d the D istri ct C o u rt ado pted i t , res ult i ng i n an adv i soryG uidel i nes i m pri sonm ent r ang e of 5 7-71 m on ths. I n bot h hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum and atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , G i l - H ernandez s oughta dow nw ar d var i ance , ar gui ng thatbeca us e the E astern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia did n o t hav e a fa st- tr ac k p rog ram fo r i ll eg al reen try d e f e n d a n ts, h e w o u ld b e su b jec t to a n u n w a rra n ted se n ten c in g d isp a rityc o m p a re d to i l l e g a l r e e n tr yd e f

e n d a n t s i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s th a th a v e s u c h a p r o g r a m. 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) ( 6) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed G i l - H ernandez ’ s m ot i on and s ent ence d hi m t o 57 m on ths i m pri sonm ent. G i l -H ernand ez no w app eal s. 2 II. D i s tr i ctcourt s m us tcons i der“the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct . ”C ir c u it c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls h a v e a n s w e re d th e q u e s tio n d if f e re n tly. C om

pa re U ni t ed 3 Stat es v. Seval , N o . 0 7 -1 2 0 4 -c r., 2 0 0 8 W L 4 3 7 6 8 2 6 (2 d C ir . S e p t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ), and U ni t ed Stat es v. R odr iguez , 527 F. 3d 221, 229 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ( fi ndi ng thata var i ance w as ap p rop ri ate a fter K i m br ough “abs entan unambi guous congr es s i onal di r ect i ve barr i ng s e n te n c in g c o u rt s f

ro m c o n s id e ri n g ” th e d is p a ri ty), w ith U n itedS ta tes v . V

eg a -C a stillo , 5 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 -3 9 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), and U nited S tates v. G om ez- Herrer a , 523 F. 3d 5 5 4 , 5 6 2 -6 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 129 S. C t . 624 ( D ec. 1, 2008) ( hol di ng that K i m br ough i s notcontr ol l i ng on the i s s ue of f as t - tr ack di s par i tybeca us e i t“addr es s ed o n lya d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n to v a ryf ro m th e G u id e lin e s b a se d o n d isa g re e m e n t w ith 4 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas , 4 7 7 F .3 d 9 4 (3 d C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 128 S. C t . 199 ( 2007) , w e hel d t hata di s par i typr oduced bythe exi s t ence orabs ence of f a st-tra c k p ro g ra m s c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d “ u n w a rra n ted ” b e c a u se C o n g re ss im p licitly sa n c tio n e d th a t d isp a rityw h e n it au th o riz e d th e se lec tiv e in stitu tio n o f su c h p ro g ra m s in th e P R O T E C T A c t, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -2 1 , § 4 0 1 (m )( 2 )( B ), 1 1 7 S ta t. 6 5 0 , 6 7 5 (2 0 0 3 ). See V ar gas , 47 7 F . 3d at98 -99. W e fou nd that “the est abli shm ent of fast -track program s i s a m at t er l eftt o C on gress and the A t t orneyG eneral , ” and w here C on gress authori zes a di s par i tyi n s ent enci ng, the di s par i tycannots erve as a gr ound t o varyfr om the G u id e lin e s . I

d. at100. H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed exc l us i vel yon V ar gas in rejec ti n g G il -H ern an d ez ’s r eques tfora dow nw ar d var i ance pur s uantt o § 3553( a) ( 6) . G i l - H ernandez ar gues that V ar gas i s no l ongergood l aw i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 5 8 (20 0 7 ). W e have noty ets poken pr ece dent i al l yon the compl i cat ed and i m por t antques t i on of K i m br ough ’s i m pact, i f any , on fast -track sent encing d i spari t i es. W e decli ne to do so 3G ui del i nes , n o t C o n g ression al po li cy ”) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). 5 in th is c a se , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd m a k e s it in e lu c tab lyc lea r th a t G ilH e rn a n d e z d i d n o tp r o f f e ra n y e v i d e n c e th a th e w a s tr e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y th a n a n y s i m i l a r l ys i tuat ed per s on w ho w as pr os ecut ed i n a fa s t - tr ack j ur i s di ct i on. G i l - H ernandez bor e the bur den of de m ons tr at i ng s i m i l ar i ty“bys how i ng thatotherdefe ndant s ’ ‘ ci r cumst ance s exac t l ypar al l el ed’ hi s . ” V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at100 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C har l es , 467 F. 3d 828, 8333 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . G i l - H ernandez m ade onl ygener al r efe r ence t o the factthat i nd i vidual s i n fast -track j uri sdi ct i on s ar e t reat ed m ore favo rabl ythan tho se arr es t ed i n otherj ur i s di ct i ons , s uch as the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. Such gener al i zed s t at ement s ar e pl ai nl yi ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thatG i l - H ernandez s uffe r ed an unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i typur s uantt o § 3553( a) ( 6) and a c our ts houl d not c o n s id e r s e n te n c e s im p o s e d o n d e f e n d a n ts in o th e r c a s e s in th e a b s e n c e o f e v id e n c e . V ar gas , 477 F. 3d at100. A tor al ar gum ent , G i l - H ernandez ’ s couns el m ai nt ai ned thatm ar s hal l i ng evi dence a t h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g re g a rd in g th e p u n ish m e n ts g iv e n to sim ilarly -situ a ted d e f e n d a n ts w oul d have be en a poi nt l es s exer ci s e bec aus e V ar gas for ecl os ed anyar gum entunder § 3553( a) ( 6) bym aki ng i tcl earthatdi s par i t i es betw een de fenda nt s i n fas t - tr ack a nd nonfas ttr ack j ur i s di ct i ons w er e w arr ant ed. W e di s agr ee. G i l - H ernandez w as s ent ence d on Ja n u a ry7 , 2 0 0 8 ; K i m br ough – the ca s e w hi ch G i l - H ernandez cont ends overrul ed V ar gasG i l - H ernandez ’ s s ent enci ng m emora ndum , fi l ed on N ovember20, 2007, 4 r efe r ence d the Supr eme C our t ’ s gr antof ce r t i or ar i i n K i m br ough in o rd e r to p re se rv e h is obj ect i on on the unw arr ant ed di s par i tyi s s ue. H ow ever , G i l - H ernandez m ade no r efe r ence t o fac t s s uffi ci entt o s how thathe w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed defe ndant s i n ei therhi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum ( w hi ch pr ece ded K i m br ough ) oratt he s ent enci ng hear i ng ( w hi ch pos t - dat ed K i m br ough ). If G il -H ern an d ez n ee d ed ti m e to m arsh al ev iden ce af ter K i m br ough w as deci ded, 5 he coul d have f

i l ed a mot i on t o cont i nue the s ent enci ng hear i ng. 6 – w a s d e c id e d a lm o st a m o n th e a rlier o n D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 . A c c o rd in g ly , G il- 4 H e rn a n d e z w a s f

re e to a rg u e th a t K i m br ough abr ogat ed ourhol di ng i n V ar gas and he coul d have pr es ent ed evi dence r egar di ng the s ent enci ng di s par i tyt o al l ow the D i s tr i ct C our tt o m ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m enti n hi s cas e. G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 5 9 7 . G il- 5 H ernandez fai l ed t o do s o and, ther efor e, di d notcarryhi s bur den of pr oof i n thi s cas e. III . G il -H ern an d ez also ch all en g es th e u se o f a p ri o r co n v ict ion to raise h is st atuto ry m axi m um puni s hm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , w hi ch i ncr eas es the m ax im u m p en altyfo r i ll eg al reen tryfro m 2 y ea rs t o 2 0 y ea rs fo r de fe n d an ts w h o w ere pr evi ous l ydeport ed fol l ow i ng an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on. G i l - H ernandez ar gues thathi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e the fa ctof hi s pr i or convi ct i on w as nei therchar ged i n t he i ndi ctm entnoradmi t t ed athi s gui l typl ea orpr oved to a ju ry b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 (2 0 0 0 ). A s G i l - H ernandez conce des , thi s ar gum enti s for ecl os ed bythe Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 3 5 (1 9 9 8 ), an d o u r d e c isio n s in7

U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 451 F. 3d 154, 159- 60 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. O r daz , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.