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 7-29-2008 

# U SA v . M ar t ine 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 . 07-3008

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 . M ar t inez " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 782. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/782NOT 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 No. 07-3008 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. R A F A E L M A R T IN E Z , J R ., A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00147- 4) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 27, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y29, 2008)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge R afa el M ar t i nez, J r . appea l s hi s s ent ence of 121 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entfor c o n s p i r i n g t o d i s t r i b u t e c o c a i n e . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 I. M ar t i nez w as arr es t ed on February26, 2004 m om ent s aft erhe and s ever al as s oci at es s ol d appr oxi m at el y3. 3 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne t o an under coverdrug enfor cementoffi cer . Sever al m ont hs l at er , he ent er ed i nt o a coope r at i ng pl ea a gr eement w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t u n d e r w h ich h e a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e more than 500 gr ams of coc ai ne, contr aryt o 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and the governm entagr eed t o m ove fora dow nw ar d departur e on hi s behal f w er e he t o r ender s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e . Subse quentt o ent er i ng hi s pl ea of gui l t y , butbefor e hi s s ent enci ng, M art i nez w as arr es t ed and c onvi ct ed i n V i r gi ni a forcons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s t r i but e 1 ki l ogr am of cocai ne. A s a r es ul tof thi s V i r gi ni a convi ct i on, the p rese n tenc e inv esti g ati o n rep o rt(“P S R ”) rec o m m en d ed that h e n o t r ec eive a d o w n w ard a d ju stm e n t in h is o f

f e n se lev e l f

o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyb e c a u se “ [ h ]is c o n d u c t is noti l l us t r at i ve of a n i ndi vi dual w ho i s trul yr emors eful forthe cr i m es w i t h w hi ch he ha s been c har ged. ” M ar t i nez’ s at t or neyobj ect ed i n t w o l ett er s t o t he C our t , ar gui ng that [ t]h e c o n d u c t f

o r w h ich h e w a s a rre ste d in V irg in ia w a s u n d e rta k e n b yh im in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

[ h is p le a ] a g re e m e n t. E v e n th o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t a u th o riz e it , he w as at t empt i ng t o s ecur e the conf i dence of a pot ent i al t ar get[named “V i ct or ”]

— one w hos e name and cont acti nform at i on he had shared w i t h D E A agen t s. (A p p . at 6) (em p h asis ad d ed . )3

M ar t i nez’ s at t or neycont i nued thi s ar gum entatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, and as s er t ed, fort he fi r s tt i m e, t hatphone r ecor ds w oul d s uppor thi s cont ent i on thatM art i nez h a d sp o k e n w ith h is D E A h a n d ler s a b o u t “V icto r” in th e d a y s le a d in g u p to h is a rre st in V i r gi ni a. T he governm entdi s put ed M art i nez’ s as s ert i on thathe had pr evi ous l ypr ovi ded itw ith inf

o rm ati o n ab o u t “V ict o r, ” a n d ad v ised the D istri ct C o u rtthat M arti n ez ’s handl er s had nothear d fr om hi m fors ever al m ont hs befor e hi s arr es t . G i ven the fa ctual di s put e and be l i evi ng t hatM ar t i nez w as at t empt i ng t o s how thathe had pur chas ed the drugs w i t h t he governm ent ’ s i m pr i m atur , the C our ti ni t i al l ybel i eved thatthe s ent enci ng h e a r i n g s h o u l d b e a d

j o u r n e d s o t h a ta d d i t i o n a l f a c t s c o u l d b e g a t h e r e d . Af t e ri tb e c a me cl eart hatM ar t i nez w as notcl ai m i ng t hathi s handl er s had appr oved the pur chas e thatl ed t o t he V i r gi ni a convi ct i on— he w as onl yat t empt i ng t o s how thathe had pr ovi ded the D E A w i t h i nform at i on about“V i ct or ” pr i ort o hi s arr es t , a pos i t i on the C our tw as “w i l l i ng to ac ce p t” – th e C o u rtco n clud ed that an ad jou rnm en t w as n o t nec essa ry . T h e C o u rt d e c lin e d , h o w e v e r, to a w a rd a d o w n w a rd a d ju stm e n t f

o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty gi ven thatM ar t i nez’ s cl ai m t hathe t ol d t he D E A about“V i ct or ” “doe s n’ tcontr adi ctt he f a c t th a t h e e n g a g e d in c ri m in a l c o n d u c t.” W i t h an off

ens e l evel of 28 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I , the D i s t r i ct C our tcal cul at ed M ar t i nez’ s r ange of i m pr i s onm entt o be 97 t o 121 m ont hs and i m pos ed aT he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). M ar t i nez a l s o ar gues t hathi s att orney ’ s fai l ur e t o pr oper l yi nves t i gat e the 2 ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng hi s arr es tand convi ct i on i n V i r gi ni a and t o adequa t el ypr es ent t he fa ct s t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tatt he s ent enci ng hear i ng cons t i tut ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . W e gene r al l ydo notent ert ai n cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el on d ir e c t a p p e a l, a n d w ill n o t d o s o n o w . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( s t at i ng t hat“[i ] thas l ong been the pr act i ce of thi s cour tt o defe rt he is s u e o f in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

tr ia l c o u n s e l to a c o lla te ra l a tta c k ” ).

4 s ent ence of 121 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed bya 5- y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 1 II. M ar t i nez a r gues t hat : ( 1) t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byr efus i ng t o adj our n t he s ent enci ng hear i ng s o t hathe coul d gatheraddi t i onal evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d adj us tm entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y ; ( 2) the C our terr ed bynot gr ant i ng hi m t hatdow nw ar d adj us t m ent ; ( 3) the C our tfai l ed t o gi ve “meani ngful cons i der at i on” t o t he fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ; and ( 4) the s ent ence i m pos ed byt he C our tw as notr eas onabl e. 2 A . A d journ m en t R eq u est W e have l i t t l e di ffi cul t yconcl udi ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o pr ocee d w ith s e n te n c in g a s s c h e d u le d d id n o t c o n s titu te a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S ee G o v’t of V . I. v . C h a rle sw e ll , 115 F. 3d 171, 174 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( s t at i ng thatthe dec i s i on t o gr antor denyan adj our nm entr eques t“i s t r adi t i onal l yw i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge w ho m u st be g iven w ide lati tud e in a rran g ing the c o u rt ’s sch ed u le”). B ec au se th e C o u rt5

as s um ed forpurpos es of s ent enci ng the onl yfac tthatM art i nez s oughtt o pr ove ( i . e. , t hat he had s poken w i t h t he age nt s about“V i ct or ” pr i ort o hi s arr es t ) , ther e w as no r eas on t hat th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g c o u ld n o t m o v e f o rw a rd . B . Sent enci ng C hal l enges

“ B ookercont empl at es t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tw i l l i m pos e a di s cr et i onarys ent ence a f ter c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e [ P S R ], as w e ll as th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s, th e g ro u n d s p ro p e rly r ai s ed bycouns el , t he def endant ’ s al l ocut i on, anyvi ct i m s t at ement s , and otherr el evant evi dence . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 52 7 F . 3d 28 2, __ _ n . 2 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T o acco m pli sh th is g o a l, th e d istric t co u rt m u st s e n ten c e d e f e n d a n ts u sin g a th re e -ste p p ro c e ss . F irst, it “mustbegi n t he pr oces s bycorr ect l ycal cul at i ng the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . N ext , i tm us tform al l yrul e on any m o tio n s f

o r d e p a rt u re . I

d. “Fi nal l y , aft ergi vi ng bot h s i des the cha nce t o ar gue forthe se n ten c e s th e yd e e m a p p ro p ria te, th e c o u rt m u st e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n b yc o n sid e rin g a ll of the § 3553( a) fac t or s and det erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e s ent ence t o i m pos e. ” I d. at216- 1 7 . “If w e d eterm ine th at th e d istri ct co u rth as c o m m itted n o sign ifi ca n t pro ce d u ral error, w e then r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan abus e- ofdi s cr et i on s t andar d, r egar dl es s of w hetheri tfal l s w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. ” I d. at218. M a rtin e z c o n ten d s, f

irst, th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a lo w e r o f f e n se lev e l b a se d o n h is a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n to rd e n y a d e f e n d a n t’ s m o tio n f

o r a d o w n w a rd a d

ju s tm e n t o n th is g ro u n d f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed6

S ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 1 7 1 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (st ati n g that “the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on w hethert o gr antt he adj us t m enti s ent i t l ed t o ‘ gr eatdefe r ence ’ on r evi ew beca us e ‘ t he s ent enci ng j udge i s i n a uni que pos i t i on t o eval uat e a de fenda nt ’ s acc ept ance o f re s p o n s ib ility’” ) ( q u o tin g U S S G § 3 E 1 .1 c m t. n .5 ). T he appl i cat i on not es i ndi cat e thatamong t he cons i der at i ons a courts houl d t ake i nt o acc ountw hen det erm i ni ng w hethera def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a dow nw ar d adj us t m ent foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yi s w hetherthe def endanthas vol unt ar i l yt erm i nat ed or w i t hdr aw n fr om cr i m i nal conduct , U SSG § 3E 1. 1 cmt . n. 1 ( 2006) , and that [ e ]n tryo f

a p lea o f g u iltyp rio r to th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f trial c o m b in e d w ith t rut hful l yadmi t t i ng t he conduc tcompri s i ng the off ens e of c onvi ct i on, and t rut hful l yadmi t t i ng ornotfal s el ydeny i ng anyaddi t i onal r el evantconduct forw hi ch he i s acc ount abl e . . . w i l l cons t i tut e s i gni fi cantevi dence of a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility f

o r t h e p u rp o s e s o f

s u b s e c tio n (a ). H

ow ever, th is e v id e n c e m a

y b e o u tw e ig h e d

b y c o n d u c t o

f th e d e fen da n t th a t is i nco nsist ent w i th such accep tan ce of r espon si bil i t y. A defenda nt w ho enters a gui l t y pl ea is notent i t l ed t o an adj us tm ent underthis s ect i on as a m at t er of r ight . Id . c m t. n .3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M ar t i nez’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d adj us t m entfor a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyo n th e g ro u n d th a t h is p o st-g u iltyp lea c o n v ictio n in V irg in ia demonstr at ed thathe had notful l yw i t hdr aw n fr om cr i m i nal conduct . A l t hough M art i nez t r i ed t o expl ai n aw ayhi s conductas an att empt

— “al bei ti n a fool har dyand ham- fi s t ed m a n n e r— to m e rit a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re f o r su b sta n tial c o o p e ra tio n ” (A p p . at 2 3 ), itis undi s put ed thathe undert ook t hi s cr i m i nal act i vi t yw i t houtthe appr oval of the7

g o v ern m en t. A cc o rdin g ly , the C o u rtd id n o t cl ea rl yerr in d en y ing the m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w a rd a d

ju s tm e n t. M ar t i nez a l s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o gi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and thathi s s ent ence w as ot herw i s e unr eas onabl e. W e di s agr ee. I n ar gui ng fora t erm of i m pr i s onm entof onl y60 m on t hs, a sent ence f

ar bel ow t he ap pli cable G uidel i nes range o f 97 t o 1 21 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent, M art i nez h i gh l i gh t ed h i s w i l l i ng ness t o p l ead g uil t y , that this w as hi s fi rs t fel onyconvi ct i on, t hatt he cr i m e w as nota cr i m e of vi ol ence , and thathe had a w i fe a nd chi l dr en w ho r el i ed on hi m forfi nanci al s uppor t . Pr i ort o s ent enci ng hi m t o t he t op of the re c o m m e n d e d ra n g e , the C o u rt sta ted :

M r . M ar t i nez ha s s ubm i t t ed manyl ett er s fr om fami l ym ember s and ot herl oved ones on hi s behal f, al l of w hi ch pai nt s a w onder ful pi ctur e of hi m as a per s on. B u t th a t is o n lyp a rt o f

w h a t th is C o u rt m u st ta k e in to a c c o u n t in arr i vi ng atan appr opr i at e s ent ence . M r . M art i nez i s al s o an ac compl i s hed d ru g d e a ler . H e h a s a c c e ss to a n d w a s in v o lv e d in d e a ls th a t w e re m u lti p le k il o g ram s. T h e [ P S R ] po ints th at ou t. T h e f ac ts of – an d , o f c o u rse, th at’s re lev a n t co n d u c t th e C o u rt sh o u ld tak e in to a c c o u n t. W h e n h e p l e d g u i l t y t o – w h a th e p l e d g u i l t y t o w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y a t hr ee a nd a hal f ki l ogr am deal , and w hathe s har ed atthe t i m e of the dea l cert ai nl yt al ked abouthi s abi l i t yt o do l ar ge dea l s and the fa ctthathe had done manyl ar ge dea l s befor e. A l l of thi s cert ai nl yt el l s thi s C our tthatthe natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off

ens e and hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of thi s part i cul ardefe ndant r equi r es t hi s C our tt o notal l ow the l eni encythatcouns el has al l uded t o on h is c lie n t’ s b e h a lf. M r. M arti n ez h as a large ex tend ed fa m il y , b u t, o b v iou sly , this C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r a n d tak e in to a c c o u n t th o se w h o h a v e n o v o ice , an d th a t is th o se w h o h a v e b e e n su b jec t to th e d ru g s th a t M r. M a rtin e z h a s b ro u g h t in to8

ourar ea. A s s uch, i ti s m yfi r m des i r e thatthi s s ent ence t ake i nt o acc ount t ho se w ho cann ot s peak for them sel ves. (A p p . at 74 -75 . ) W e a re m o re th a n sa tisf ied th a t th e D istric t C o u rt g a v e m e a n in g f u l co n sid e ra tio n to t he s ect i on 3553( a) fac t or s and conc l ude thati tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng M art i nez to a t erm of im pri sonm ent of 12 1 m on t hs. III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e .