2007 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 6-29-2007 

# U S A v . M or ales -Ap on t e 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 . 06-3570

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork 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_2007

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 2007 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 or ale s -Apon t e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 857. 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_2007/8571 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No: 06- 3570 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. FR ED DY MO RA LE S- AP ON TE , Appe l l ant A p p eal f ro m th e D istrict C o u rt f

o r th e V irg in Islan d s, Di vi s i on of St . Thom a s and St . J ohn ( Cr i m No. 05- c r - 00095) Distri ct Judg e: Ho n. Cu rt is V. Go m ez Subm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

De c e m be r 8, 2006 Be fo r e : Mc KE E, BA RRY, andST AP LE TO N , Circuit Judg es ( Opi ni on fi l e d: June 28, 2007)

OP INI ON M cK E E , Ci rc ui t

J udge . F red dy M o rales-A p o n te ap p eals th e sen ten ce th at w as im p o sedaf ter h e p ledg u ilty t o i l l e ga l r e e ntry

and fa l s e i m

pe r s onat i on of ac i t i z e n of the Uni t e d St at e s . For the re as on s that follow, we will affirm the s ente nce. I. M o rales-A p o n te w as rem o v edf ro m th e U n itedS tates to th e D o m in ican R ep ub lic2

on De c e m

be r 6, 2000. On Nove m

be r 10, 2005, he att e m

pt e d t o r e e nt e r

by pr e s e nt i ng a fraudu le nt Pu erto Rican d ri ver’ s l ic ense and b ir th ce rt ific at e, bo th bear ing the nam e, “J oel Vas qu ezMo ra le s, ” t o imm igrati on of fice rs in St. Tho m as . He was ther ea fter ref erredto seco n d ary

in sp ectio n w h ere h e claim edto b e a U n itedS tates citizen . Howe ve r , am i c r os c opi c t e s t of the bi rth c e rt i fi c at e s howe d that the nam e of the tr

ue o w n er h adb een rem o v edan drep lacedw ith “Jo el V asqu ez M o rales.” T h e p aren ts’ nam es had als o b ee n rem ov ed and replac ed with other nam es . Moral es -Apo nte was id en tif iedb asedup o n f

in g erp rin t co m

p ariso n s th at also d isclo sedh is p rio r rem o v al. The r e a ft e r , Mor a l e s - Apont e wa s c har ge d wi th i l l e ga l r e e ntry by ar e m ove d a l i e n, i n v i ol at i onof

8 U . S. C. §§ 13 26 ( a ) and( b) ( 2) ( Co un t On e ) andfa l s e i m

pe r s on at i onof

a ci ti ze n o f the Un it ed Stat es , i n v iolati on of 18 U.S.C. § 9 11 (Cou nt Tw o). Tri al was sc hedu le d f

or February

21 , 200 6. Ho wever, on February 8, 20 06 , new coun se l was a ppoi nt e d at

Mor a l e s - Apont e ’ s r e que s t , and tr i a l wa s r e s c he dul e d t o May 15, 2006. Ap prox im at el y

a wee k b efore the sc hedu le d tri al date , Moral es -Apo nte e nter ed an ope n gui l ty

pl e at o both c ount s of the i ndi c tm e nt . Unde r the Se nt e nc i ng Gui de l i ne s , the ba s e offe ns e l e ve l for

hi s offe ns e s wa s 24. Hi s e xt e ns i ve c r i m i na l r e c or d r e s ul t e d i n a c r i m i na l hi s t ory

c at e gory I V wi th ac orr e s pondi ng a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng r ange of 77 t o 96 m onths . Hi s a c c e pt anc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc e d hi s offe ns e l e ve l t o 22, and the sen ten cin g ran g e w as th ereb y redu cedto 6 3 to 7 8 m o n th s. Dur i ng the uns uc c e s s ful pl e ane got i at i ons that pr e c e de d hi s ope n gui l ty pl e a , the3

gove rnm e nt

offe r e d an a ddi t i ona l one poi nt r e duc t i on for

e xtr a or di nary

a c c e pt anc e of re spon si bili ty

if Mo ra le s- Ap on te agre ed to waive his appell at e r ights. Th at additi on al p o in t w o u ldh av e f

u rth er redu cedth e ad v iso ry sen ten cin g ran g e to 5 7 to 7 1 m o n th s. H o w ev er, th e p arties w ere n ev er ab le to reach a p lea ag reem en t. On Jul y 5, 2006, Mor a l e s - Apont e fi l e d am ot i on for downwar d de part

ur e ar gui ng: (1 ) th at h e sh o u ldreceiv e a f o u r lev el d ep artu re u n d er U .S .S .G . § 5 K 3 .1 to av o id sen ten cin g d isp arity

w ith d ef en d an ts ind istricts th at h av e an early d isp o sitio n o r “f

asttrack ” p o licy ; (2 ) th at h e sh o u ldreceiv e a d o w n w ardd ep artu re u n d er U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .0 fo r c ultura l a ss im il at ion; and (3) that he shou ld re ce ive an add it ional point un der U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) f

o r ex trao rd in ary

accep tan ce o f

resp o n sib ility . H e claim edth at, afte r Un ited States v. Bo oker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), th e d istrict co u rt h add iscretio n to aw ardeach o f

th ese d ep artu res w ith o u t a m o tio n f ro m th e g o v ern m en t. Du ri ng the s ente ncing p roce eding that followed, Mo ra le s- Ap on te ’s coun se l s tate d that he wa s m aki ng the s am e ar gum e nt s that he ha d m a de on be ha l f of Ke vi n Bry an who ha d be e n s e nt e nc e d e ar l i e r the s am e day . The c ourt s e nt e nc e d Mor a l e s - Apont e t o 63 m on ths i m

pris on m ent followed b y

two y ears of

supervis ed re le as e, and im po se d a spec ia l assessm en t o f

$ 2 0 0 . T h e d istrict co u rt ex p lain ed : Havi ng c ons i de r e d the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r ange of 63 t o 78 m onths , whi c h i s ba s e d on an offe ns e l e ve l of 22, and a crim in al h isto ry

categ o ry o f IV , th e criteria set f

o rth at T itle 18 , Sec ti on 35 53 and the se ntenci ng fact ors e nu m er at ed at Ti t l e 18, Se c t i on 3553( a ) , and pur s uant t o the Se nt e nc i ng Re form Ac t of 1984, i t

i s the judgm e nt

of the Court

that the4 defend ant, Freddy

Mo ra le s- Ap on te , a ls o k no wn as Joel Va s que z Mor a l e s , be c omm i tt e d t o the c us t ody of the U. S. B u reauo f

P riso n s f o r a term o f 6 3 m o n th s. Thi s a ppe a l fol l owe d. II. A. Dow nw ar d De par t ur e s Pur s uantt o U. S. S. G. § 5K3. 1. M o rales-A p o n te relies up o n th e ab sen ce o f a “f ast-track ” p ro g ram

in th e V irg in Is land s t o argue that

he re ce ived a s ente nce that i s s ignificantly long er than that re ce ived by si m il ar ly si tuat ed al ie ns in ju dici al dist ri ct s with “fast -tra ck” program s. He cl ai m s that the us e of “ fa s t - tr a c k” de part ur e s i n s om e di s tr i c t s but not othe r s c r e at e s as e nt e nc i ng dispar it y that the c ou rt shou ld have tr ie d to m it igat e und er 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3(a) (6) when im p o sin g h is sen ten ce. S ectio n 3 5 5 3 (a)(6 ) requ ires co u rts to co n sid er: “th e n eedto av o id un warr ante d sente nce dis pari ti es am on g d efendants with sim il ar re cords who have been fo un d g uilt

y of si m il ar conduct. ” We h av e recen tly

ex p lain edth at th is “f

ast-track ” arg u m en t h as b een “alm o st un iform ly re ject ed” by

“nearl y ever y court of app ea ls in the Unite d S tate s. ” Un ited States v . Var gas , 477 F. 3d 94, 98 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) . I n Var gas , w e j o in edth e m aj o rity o f th o se co u rts in rej ectin g th e arg u m en t th at M o rales-A p o n te m ak es h ere. A cco rd in g ly , h is arg u m en t th at th e d istrict co u rt erredin n o t redu cin g h is sen ten ce to m itig ate th e d isp arity arisin g f ro m th e ab sen ce o f

a “f ast–track ” p ro g ram

in th e V irg inIslan d s is m eritless. B. Decr ease in of

fense l evelpu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3 E1 .1(b).5

M o rales-A p o n te also co n ten d s th at th e g o v ern m en t’s ref u sal to f ile a m o tio n to awar d an a ddi t i ona l poi nt unde r U. S. S. G. § 3E1. 1( b) wa s m a de i n ba d fa i th and, the di s tr i c t c ourt s houl d the r e for e have gr ant e d hi m the one poi nt

r e duc t i on de s pi t e the ab sen ce o f

a m o tio n f

ro m th e g o v ern m en t. H e also claim s th e g o v ern m en t’s ref u sal to fi l e s uc h am ot i on i s t ant am ount t o a“ de ni a l of e qua l tr e atm e nt unde r the U. S. C o n stitu tio n .” A p p ellan t’s B r. at 1 1 . B o th co n ten tio n s are w ith o u t m erit. Mor a l e s - Apont e ’ s c l a i m

that the gove rnm e nt

a c t e d i n ba d fa i th i n not

fi l i ng a m o tio n f o r th e ad d itio n al o n e p o in t redu ctio n u n d er § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) is b asedso lely up o n h is un s up po rt e d a s s e rt i on . He po i nt s t o n othi ng i n the r e c or d t o s up po rt that c l a i m , andwe can f ind n othing to supp ort i t. It is cl ear from

§ 3 E1 .1 and the re le vant comm entary that the gove rnm e nt

ha s di s c r e t i on t o fi l e s uc h am ot i on ba s e d upon i t s a s s e s s m e nt of the re le vant ci rc um st ance s i n a part ic ular ca se . The abse nce of a m otion f or an additi on al r e duc t i on ba s e d upon e xtr a or di nary a c c e pt anc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty i s c e rt a i nl y

c ons i s t e nt with the protr ac te d n at

ure of the un succ es sful plea nego ti at ions that

le d up to the op en gu il ty plea . This r ec ord sim

ply do es no t s up po rt

Mo ra le s- Ap on te ’s cl ai m that he was som ehow denied “e qu al tr eatm ent. ”

C. Denial of

Mo ti on fo r One Po int Dec re ase in Crim inal Hist ory Score. Mor a l e s - Apont e a l s o ar gue s that the di s tr i c t

c ourt e rr e d by de nyi ng hi s m ot i on for a o n e p o in t d ecrease in h is crim in al h isto ry sco re. U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .1 (c) d irects th at 1 poi nt s houl d be a dde d for

e a c h pr i or

s e nt e nc e that

wa s l e s s than 60 day s , up t o at ot a l of6

4 p oints. Sect ion 4 A1 .2(c ) further spec ifie s that s ente nces fo r c erta in prior off ense s, such as re ckle ss driving, driving w it ho ut a l ic ense or driving w it h a re vo ked o r s uspend ed licen se an dleav in g th e scen e o f an accid en t are co u n tedo n ly if “(A ) th e sen ten ce w as a t e rm of pr obat i on of at

l e a s t one y e ar or at e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt

of at l e a s t thi rty day s , or (B) the prior off

ense was s im il ar

to an inst ant off

ense .” Mo ra le s- Ap on te ob

ject ed to a c ri m inal hist ory po int for the tra ff

ic of fense s et forth i n ¶ 42 of hi s Pr e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i gat i on Re port . Aft e r r e vi e wi ng the PSR, conf er ri ng with the probati on of fice r andhear ing argum ent from coun se l, the dis tr ic t c ourt r e je c t e d Mor a l e s - Apont e ’ s obje c t i on. Mor a l e s - Apont e now ar gue s that the one p o in t sh o u ldn o t h av e b een ad d edto h is crim in al h isto ry sco re f o r th e traf f ic o f f en se beca use the “r ec ord is s il ent a s t o w hether [h is ] suspend ed driving p ri vile ge was exte nd ed fo r a

y ear or whether he was given a te rm of im pris on m ent which was s us pe nde d for

ay e ar . ” Appe l l ant ’ s Br . at 13. Howe ve r , he e i the r m i s i nt e r pr e t s the reco rdo r ch o o ses to ig n o re it. The PSR at

¶ 42 s t at e s that

Mor a l e s - Apont e wa s c onvi c t e d of ope r at i ng am ot or v eh icle af ter h av in g h is licen se su sp en d ed , leav in g th e scen e o f an accid en t, p ro p erty dam age, and rel at ed of

fenses . He was se ntence d to o ne y ear probati on . The po li ce re po rt s t at e d that

he r e s ponde d t o pol i c e e ffort s t o pul l hi m ove r for atr a ffi c vi ol at i on by sp eed in g aw ay

af ter th e p o lice lig h ts w ere tu rn edo n , w eav in g in an do u t o f traf f ic at a h ig h rate o f

sp eedan dstrik in g an o th er v eh icle du rin g th e h ig h sp eedp u rsu it. A D i s t r i ct7

C our t m ayr el y a fa ct ual s t at ement i n a PSR at s ent enci ng, abs ent a t i m el y and s ubs t ant i al o b je c tio n f ro m o n e o f

th e p a rt ie s . See U

ni t ed St at es v. May , 4 1 3 F .3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 8 -4 9 (8 th C i r . 2005) ( “Toget her , R ul es 32( f) ( 1) and 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) es t abl i s h t hat an unt i m el y obj ect i on t o a fa ct i n t he pr es ent ence r epor t does not change t he fa ct ’ s ‘ undi s put ed’ s t at us , and t he d istric t co u rt m a y a d o p t th e f a c t w ith o u t ad d iti o n a l ev id e n c e .”); U ni t ed St at es v. C

yr , 337 F .3 d 9 6 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ G e n e ra lly , a P S R b e a rs s u f f icie n t in d icia o f

re liab ili tyto p e rm it t he di s t r i ct cour t t o r el y on i t at s ent enci ng. T he def endanti s fr ee t o chal l enge a ny as s er t i ons i n t he PSR w i t h count er vai l i ng evi dence or pr offe r s , i n w hi ch ca s e t he di s t r i ct cour t i s obl i ged t o r es ol ve anygenui ne and mat er i al di s put e on t he mer i t s . B ut i f t he defe ndant ' s obj ect i ons t o t he PSR ar e mer el y r het or i cal and uns uppor t ed bycount er vai l i ng pr oof, t he di s t r i ct cour t i s ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he fa ct s i n t he PSR . ”) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); accor d U ni t ed St at es v. C ot hr an , 3 0 2 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 6 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); U n itedS ta tes v . W

ill is , 3 0 0 F .3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Love , 134 F. 3d 595, 606 ( 4t h C i r . 1998) . H er e, M or al es - A pont e’ s obj ect i on w as r ai s ed for t he f irst tim e a t se n ten c in g , an d c o n sis ted m e re lyo f h is a tto rn e y ’s d e n ial o f th e sta tem e n t in th e P S R th a t M o ra le s -A p o n te re c e iv e d a y e a r o f p ro b a tio n f

o r h is 1 9 9 6 tr a f

f ic o f f e n s e . U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he D i s t r i ct C our t w as ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he PSR w i t hout a d d itio n a l in q u ir y . Th e r es ulti ng conv ic ti on was c orre ct ly coun te d u nd er

§§ 4A 1.1(c) and 4 A1 .2(c ). D. Cul t ur alAs s i m i l at i on.8

Al though thi s c ourt

ha s not a ddr e s s e d the pr opr i e ty

of adownwar d de part

ur e for cult ural as si m il at ion in a prec edenti al op inion, other c ou rt s of app ea ls have. The Un it ed St at e s Court

of Appe a l s for

the Fi fth Ci r c ui t

ha s s t at e d that

s uc h ade part

ur e m ay be approp ri at e i n an “aty

pica l or e xtra ordinary

ca se .” Un ited States v. Rodr i gue z -Monte longo , 263 F. 3d 429, 433- 34 ( 5th Ci r . 2001) . The Court of Appe a l s for th e N in th C ircu it h as reco g n izedth e v alid ity o f su ch a d ep artu re in d icta, se e Unite d States v . Li

pman , 133 F. 3d 726, 730- 31 ( 9th Ci r . 1998) ; and the Court of Appe a l s for

the E lev en th C ircu it h as h in tedat su ch a d ep artu re. S ee U n ited Sta tes v. S

a n ch ez-V a len cia , 148 F. 3d 1273, 1274 ( 11th Ci r . 1998) ( pe r c ur i am ) ( c i t i ng Li

pman ). Th e dis tr ic t c ou rt un ders toodthat

the guideli nes wer e only advisory and app re ci at ed that

it could d epart downwar d wi thi n the c onfi ne s of § 3553( a ) . The c ourt ' s r e fus a l t o do s o wa s al awful ex ercise o f

its d iscretio n w h ich w e lackj u risd ictio n to rev iew . See Unite d States v . De nardi , 892 F.2d26 9, 27 2 (3dCir. 19 89 ) ( “To the exte nt this appeal atta cks the distri ct c ourt ' s e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on i n r e fus i ng t o r e duc e the s e nt e nc e s be l ow the s e nt e nc i ng g u id elin es, it w ill b e d ism issedf o r lacko f ap p ellate j u risd ictio n .”); se e als o U nite d States v. Co op er , 437 F.3d32 4, 33 2-33 (3d C ir .200 6). III. Conc l us i on. For a l l of the above r e a s ons , we wi l l a ffi rm the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s i m

pos i t i on of se ntence .