2004 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
7-21-2004 

# U S A v . B ai ley 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 . 02-1736

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_2004

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 2004 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 . B ai ley " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 480. 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_2004/480NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No. 02-1736

________________ UNI TED STATE S OF AMERI CA

v. MELI SSA G. BAIL

EY, Appellant

________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court

For the D istrict of Delaw are (D.C. Crim. No. 00-cr- 00023-2) Distri ct Judge: Honorable GregoryM. Sleet

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 15, 2003 Be for e: R OT H, M CK EE AN D R OS EN N, CIRCUIT J UDGES

(Fil ed : Jul y 21, 2004)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ Ro th, Circuit

Judge Appellant

Melissa Bail ey appe als t he judgment of s entence entered in t he United2

States D istrict Co urt for the D istrict of D elaw are on M arch 5 , 2002 . Bailey ple aded guilty to conspi racyto commit bank r obbery in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count II), and embezzlement by

a bank employ ee in vi olati on of 18 U.S.C. § 656 (Count IV). The Distri ct Court s entenced her to 60 months i mprisonment on Count II, and 87 months imp rison me nt o n C oun t IV , wit h th e se nten ces to ru n co ncu rren tly. Baileyrais es two iss ues on appeal . Fir st, she clai ms that couns el was inef fecti ve for fail ing to obj ect t o the los s figur e appli ed by t he District Court

in cal culating the applicable gu ideline range o n Co unt IV. Se cond, B ailey argues that the D istrict Court abused it s discretion i n refusi ng to grant a downward departure. We have juris dicti on pur suantto 28 U. S. C. § 129 1 an d wi llaff irm. In general , we will not ente rtai n a defendant’ s clai m of ineffective ass ist ance of
cou nse l on dire ct ap pea l un less w e ha ve a suf ficie nt re cor d on app eal to dec ide th e issu e. See United States v. Thornton , 327 F .3d 26 8, 271 (3d C ir. 2003 ); see also Massaro v. United States , 123 S.Ct. 1690, 1696 (2003) (decli ning to hol d that i neffecti ve assi stance of counsel c laims must

be reserved for col late ral review). We agree with both par ties that the rec ord is s uffici ent to resolve t he issue in thi s case. To establ ish i neffecti ve assi stance of counsel, Baileymust show that counsel’ s performance was defici ent and that the def icien t per for ma nce prejud iced her
. See Stri ckland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (19 84) . Th is sh e ca nno t do
. Baileyclai ms that couns el was inef fecti ve for fai ling to object to a los s amount set1 Spe ci fi ca ll y , B ai le y cl ai ms t ha t i n he r p le a a gr ee men t, wit h r es pe ct to Cou ntIV, she pleade d guilt

y t o embezzling “ approximat ely$100,000.” The PSR noted that Bai ley had init iall y i ndicat ed that

she had embezzle d approximat ely$150,000, and thus increa sed the offe nse levelon Count IV by ni ne level s because Bai leyhad embezzled between $120 ,000 and $200,000. Had Bailey embezzled less t han $120,000, the increase in th e of fen se le vel w oul d ha ve b een less. 3 forth in the P resen tence Inve stigation Rep ort (PS R) w ith resp ect to C oun t IV. A s a resu lt, Baileyclai ms that her

Total Offense Levelwas increas ed from 28 to 29, resul ting i n a higher s entence. 1 However, counsel’ s all eged error had no impact whats oever on the Distri ct Court’ s sente ncing guide line c alcul ation. As set fort h above, Bail ey pl eaded gui lt y to two co unt s: Cou ntII , c ons pi ra cyto co mmi t r obb ery , and C oun t I V, embe zzlemen t. The cou nts were g rouped separately. The calculation on C ount II resul ted in an adjusted offense l evel of 32. The allege dly erroneous calcul ation on Count IV resulted in an adj usted offens e levelof 15. Because t he offense l evel on Count I V was more than ni ne level s lower than that for Count II , the score on Count I V was disre gar ded for pur pos es o f ca lcula ting the f inal o ffe nse leve l. See U.S .S.G . § 3D 1.4( c). Therefore, the combined total of fense le vel was based s olely on the uncont ested calc ulati on f or C oun t II. C oun sel’s alleg ed e rror t hus did not prejud ice B ailey. See Stri ckland , 466 U.S. at 687. Baile y’s secon d claim is that the Distric t Cou rt erred in refus ing to g rant a dow nw ard dep artu re. We lack jurisdiction to review the District Cou rt’s discretionary dec ision to n ot d epa rt. See Un ited Sta tes v. M cQ uilkin , 97 F.3d 7 23, 729 (3 d Cir.199 6) (acourt of appeals “l ack[s] j urisdi ction to review a re fusal t o depart downward when the

dist rict court, knowing it maydo so, nonet heless determi nes that

departure is not warranted”). Baileyclaims, however, that we have jurisdiction over this clai m because the Dist rict Court based i ts deci sion upon mater iall y fal se information and t hus the
sen tenc e w as im pos ed in vio latio n of the la w. See United States v. Torres , 251 F.3d 138, 151 (3d C ir. 2000 ). A re view of the record show s that the Distric t Cou rt did no t base its decisi on upon materi ally false i nformati on. The District Court’s i nterpretation of the facts mer elydiffere d from Bailey ’s. In thi s case, the Dist rict Court revi ewed the facts and conclud ed that they did not w arrant a dow nwa rd departure. A clearly discretionary dete rmin ation by the Dis trict C our t is no t rev iew able
. See Un ited Sta tes v. S ally , 116 F.3d 76, at 7 8 (3d Cir.19 97). T o the e xtent th at Ba iley claims th at the D istrict Co urt did not adeq uately analyze the evidence whe n conside ring the gov ernmen t’s departure motion, the cl aim lacks merit. In decli ning to depart, the Dist rict Court conduct ed an indivi dualiz ed examinati on of Bailey ’s subst antia l assi stance and acknowledged the fac tors e num erate d in U.S .S.G . § 5K 1.1. See Torres , 251 F.3d at 147 (explai ning duty

of
sen tenc ing jud ge)
. Fo r the reas ons set f orth abo ve, w e w ill aff irm t he ju dgm ent o f se nten ce.

4