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 12-19-2008 

# U SA v . S hedrick 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 . 07-4448

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 . S he dr ick " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 69. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/69T he H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez, J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he * D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , 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. 07- 4448 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

A ppel l ee v . J AM ES S HEDRI CK

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 ( C r i m . N o. C R 02- 532- 1) H onor abl e Legr om e D . D avi s , D i s t r i ctJ udge Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber3, 2008 B E F O R E : A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R O D R I G U E Z , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber19, 2008) OP I NI ON2

R O D R I G U E Z , D i s t r i ctJ udge: J ames Shedr i ck appe al s fr om hi s s ent ence i m pos ed af t era pl ea of

gui l t yt o one c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d f

e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 96 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e of t hr ee y ear s , a fi ne of $7, 500. 00, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. 00. Shedr i ck cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bygr ant i ng an upw ar d departur e of e i ght o ff en se lev els, an d that itim p o sed an u n rea so n ab le sen tenc e. W e d isag ree an d w il l aff irm t he s ent ence i m pos ed. I . J UR I S DI CT I ON T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, as thi s m att ercomes befo re the C ou rtdu e t o a ti m el yapp eal from the o rderof judg m ent i n a cri m i nal cas e ent er ed on N ovember13, 2007. A ddi t i onal l y , thi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742 t o r evi ew t he s ent ence i m pos ed.

I I . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY T he under l y i ng conductt hatgave r i s e t o t he i ni t i al i ndi ctm entoccurr ed on J ul y11, 2 0 0 2 . O n th a t d a te, p o lice o f f ice rs a rriv e d a t 6 4 th S tre e t an d G re e n w a yA v e n u e in P h ilad e lp h ia, P A , in r e sp o n se to 9 1 1 e m e rg e n c yc a lls re p o rtin g a m a n w ith a g u n . S h o rtly t her eaf t er , O ffi cerPem br ook s pot t ed A ppel l antShedr i ck s t andi ng i n t he mi ddl e of the s t r eetw i t h a l ar ge s i l verr evol ver . H e r adi oed forbackup, and w as qui ckl yj oi ned by O ffi cer s M as on, R ut t er , and G al l en- R ui z. A l l offi cer s then i ns t ruct ed A ppel l antt o dr op3

h is w e a p o n . A p p e llan t ch o se n o t co o p e ra te; h e u n su c c e ss f u llya ttem p ted to f

ire h is r evol veri nt o t he ai rt hr ee t i m es . A ppel l antthen opene d t he cy l i nderof the r evol ver , and s i x empt ys hel l cas i ngs dr opped t o t he gr ound. W hi l e A ppel l antchec ked hi s w eapon, t he o f f ic e rs ta c k le d h im a n d p la c e d h im u n d e r a rr e s t. B ef o re m o v ing o n , itis i m p o rt an t t o n o te th at A p p ell an t disch arg ed h is fir ea rm p ri o r t o th e o f

f ic e rs ’ a rr iv a l. T w o s h o ts h it a m o v in g v a n w ith tw o p a s s e n g e rs in s id e . T he fir stshot hi tt he top of t he h oo d, and the seco nd hitthe m i dd l e of the w i nd shi el d– j ust m issi n g d ri v er L ayN g u y en an d h is pa ssen g er-em p loy ee P atri cia E d w ard s. (A p p . 4 5 . ) N ei t her of the passengers sust ai ned anyi njur i es. T hi s cas e or i gi nal l ycame befor e the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hen on A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , th e g ra n d ju ry re tu rn e d a n in d ic tm e n t f o r A p p e lla n t J a m e s S h e d ri c k . A p p e llan t w a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm b ya f

e lo n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). O n N o v e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 2 , A p p e lla n t p le a d e d g u ilty to th a t c h a rg e . H e s t i pul at ed t o t he fol l ow i ng fac t s : ( 1) pos s es s i on of a Sm i t h & W es s on . 357 m agnum ca li b er rev o lver; (2) p rev iou s co n v ict ion o f a crim e p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r m o re t han one y ear ; and ( 3) t he r el evantfi r earm aff ect ed i nt er s t at e comm er ce a s i tw as m anufa ctur ed out s i de Penns y l vani a. ( Suppl . A pp. 3. ) A ppel l antfur t hers t i pul at ed that “the C our tm aym ake f

actual and l egal det erm i nat i ons thatdi ffe rfr om thes e s t i pul at i ons and thatm ayr es ul ti n an i ncr eas e ordecr eas e i n t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange a nd t he sen tenc e tha t m ayb e im p o sed . ” (Id . )4

T h e p lea a ck n o w ledg ed that A p p ell an t’ s m ax im u m statu torysen tenc e u n d er § 922( g) ( 1) coul d be as m uch as t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , i ncl udi ng thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, a $250, 000. 00 fi ne, and a $100. 00 s peci al as s es s m ent . ( I d. at2. ) N ot abl y , the par t i es agr eed thateac h w as “fr ee t o ar gue the appl i cabi l i t yof anyotherpr ovi s i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , i ncl udi ng offe ns e conduc t , offe ns e cha r act er i s t i cs , cr i m i nal hi s t or y , adj us t m ent s and depa r tur es . . . ” ( I d. at3. ) Fi nal l y , r el evantpor t i ons of the pl ea agr eemental s o i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng w ai verpr ovi s i on: 10. I n excha nge for t he under t aki ngs m ade byt he governm enti n ent er i ng th is p lea a g re e m e n t, th e d e f e n d a n t v o lu n tar ilya n d e x p re ss lyw a iv e s a ll r i gh t s t o a p p e a l o rc o l l a t e r a l l ya t t a c k th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i on, s ent ence , oranyot herm at t er r el at i ng t o t hi s pr os ecut i on, w hethers uch a r i ght to appeal orcol l at er al at t ack a r i s es under18 U . S. C . 3742, 28 U. S . C. 1 2 9 1 , 2 8 U. S . C. 2 2 5 5 , o ra n yo t h e rp r o v i s i o n o f l a w. ( A ) N ot w i t hs t andi ng the w ai verpr ovi s i on above, i f the governm ent appea l s fr om t he s ent ence , then the def endantm ayfi l e a di r ect appea l of hi s s ent ence . ( B ) I f the governm entd oes notappea l , then notw i t hs t andi ng the w ai verpr ovi s i on s etfor t h i n par agr aph 10 above , the def endant m a yf ile a d ire c t ap p e a l b u t m a yra ise o n lyc laim s th a t: ( i ) i f the s ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um ; or ( i i ) i f t he j udge er r oneous l y depar t ed u p war d f r o m t he o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e . ( Suppl . A pp. 4. ) D ur i ng an ext ens i ve pl ea col l oquy w i t h J udge D avi s , A ppel l antconfi r m ed in o p e n c o u rt th a t h e f

u lly u n d e rs to o d th e te rm s o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t. ( S e e A p p . 2 1 -3 5 .) T w o w eeks pr i ort o t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the G overnm entfi l ed a s ent enci ng m emora ndum cont ai ni ng t w o r ecomm endat i ons : ( 1) A ppel l ants houl d be s ubj ectt o aT h e P . S . R . ca lculated A p p ell an t’ s b ase o ff en se lev el at 20 . D u e to A p p ell an t’ s 1 pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, the ca l cul at i on w as s ubj ectt o a four - l evel enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . T he r es ul t ant24 w as then s ubj ect to a th re e -l e v e l d o w n w a rd a d ju s tm e n t f

o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 . T h e s e a d

ju s tm e n ts f

in a lly re s u lte d in a c o m b in e d p o in t to ta l o f 2 1 . (A p p . 1 5 -1 6 .) 5 fou r- l evel enhan cem ent for posses si ng a fi rearm i n co nn ect i on w i t h a fe l on yoff ense ( drug deal i ng) ; and ( 2) t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d departupw ar d ei ghtl evel s fr om the G u id e lin e s ra n g e b e c a u se A p p e llan t f ire d th e w e a p o n d u rin g th e c o m m iss io n o f h is offe ns e ( s hoot i ng att he pas s engervan) . C ons i s t entw i t h t hes e r ecomm endat i ons , the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes ’ r ange be came 87 t o 108 m ont hs . ( Suppl . A pp. 18. ) A ppel l ant obj ect ed t o t hes e r ecomm endat i ons , i ns t ead c ont endi ng thathe w as s ubj ectt o a 46 t o 57 m o n th ra n g e . (A p p . 7 2 -7 3 .)

1 T he s ent enci ng hear i ng w as ther eaf t erhel d on February21, 2003. T he D i s t r i ct C our thear d t es t i m onyfr om L ayN guy en ( t he dr i verof the van) , A ki B r i ckhous e ( t he man r es pons i bl e fort r ans ferr i ng pos s es s i on of the gun t o A ppel l ant ’ s br other ) , D et ect i ve M i s s i m er( t he det ect i ve w ho i nt ervi ew ed A ppel l ant ’ s br other– T ar i k R obi ns on) , R ache l J acobs ( A ppel l ant ’ s m ot her ) , and A ppel l anthi m s el f, w ho m ade a s t at ementfr om c o u n s e l’ s ta b le . T he C our tul t i m at el yacc ept ed as cr edi bl e the t es t i m onyfr om B r i ckhous e that A ppel l antcarr i ed the w eapon i n connec t i on w i t h “hus t l i ng”, thati s , deal i ng coca i ne on t he s t r eet s . ( A pp. 56, 91. ) T he C our tal s o acc ept ed as cr edi bl e the t es t i m onyof N guy en, w h o test ifi ed that A p p ell an t w as th e p erso n w h o sh o t tw ice a t her v an . (A p p . 5 1 , 9 3 . ) InT her e w as one di s cr epanc yi n N guy en’ s t es t i m ony . A ppel l antw as arr es t ed 2 w ear i ng a bl ack t - s hi r t . A ccor di ng t o N guy en, the s hoot erw or e a w hi t e t - s hi r t . W hen N guy en w as confr ont ed w i th t hatdi s cr epanc y , he ans w er ed thathe w as focus ed on the gun m or e than the part i cul arcl ot hes of the def endant . Si gni fi cant l y , N guy en t es t i fi ed that th e g u n w a s c h ro m e , a n d th e S m ith & W e s s o n s e iz e d f ro m A p p e lla n t w a s in d e e d c h ro m e . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n Ng u y e n we n tt o a f t e rth e s h o o t i n g wa s o n l yt wo bl ocks aw ay , N guy en r etur ned t o t he s cene qui ckl yand w i t nes s ed A ppel l antbei ng t ackl ed in th e “ s a m e p la c e ” w h e re th e s h o o tin g h a d o c c u rr e d . (A p p . 8 8 .) 6 fac t , J udge D avi s r eca l l ed N guy en t o di r ect l yans w erques t i ons s o as t o ver i fythat A pp el l ant w as properl yi den t i fi ed. A s Judge D avis t old N gu y en, “I’ m aski ng y ou these 2 ques t i ons beca us e i t ’ s veryi m por t antt o m e as a j udge thatI know w hatthe fa ct s ar e and th a t I d o th e ri g h t th in g .” (A p p . 8 7 .) T h e D istric t C o u rt u lti m a telya p p lied th e f o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t as so c iate d w ith ca rry ing the w ea p o n in co n n ec ti o n w ith d ea li n g d rug s an d the e igh t- leve l up w ard departur e fors hoot i ng att he pas s engervan. ( Suppl . A pp. 18. ) T he C our tthen adj us t ed dow nw ar d t hr ee l evel s forA ppel l ant ’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , w hi ch br oughtthe t ot al t o 29. ( A pp. 94. ) W i t h t he appr opr i at e s ent enci ng r ange a t87 t o 108 m ont hs , the C o u rt im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f 9 6 m o n th s , in c lu d in g th re e y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , a $ 7 , 5 0 0 fin e, an d the m an d atory$ 1 0 0 sp ec ial asse ssm en t. (Id. at 95 -96 . ) Shedr i ck r ece i ved court - appoi nt ed couns el forpurpos es of appe al . Si x m onths aft ert he s ent enci ng, couns el fi l ed a mot i on forenl ar gementof t i m e t o ent era not i ce of a p p e a l nunc pr o t unc . ( Suppl . A pp. p. 18. ) T hatm ot i on w as deni ed as unt i m el yon A ugus t27, 2003, and w e di s m i s s ed the appe al as unt i m el yon N ovember25, 2003. ( I d. at7

19. ) A ppel l antt her eaf

t er( t hr ough couns el ) fi l ed a § 2255 ha beas pet i t i on fori neff ect i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l , wh i c h a g a i n wa s d e n i e d b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t . A pr o s e pet i t i on for a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t ywa s t h e n f i l e d b e f o r e th i s Co u r t , wh i c h wa s g r a n t e d f o rt wo iss u e s: “ w h e th e r c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to a d v ise [ A p p e llan t] o f a p o ss ib le upw ar d departur e ats ent enci ng; and w hethercouns el w as i neff ect i ve forfi l i ng an u n ti m elyap p ea l. ” (Id . at 19 . ) I n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on, s ee, gener al l y , U ni t ed St at es v. Shedr i ck, 493 F. 3d 292 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e ans w er ed i n t he nega t i ve as t o t he fi r s ti s s ue, butfound i n favorof A ppel l antas t o t he s econd. W e al s o s t at ed thatthe onl yi s s ue pr es erved forappea l w as w hethert he ei ght - l evel upw ar d departur e w as err oneous . I d. at303. B eca us e thati s s ue w as e x tens ivelyb ri ef

ed , this C o u rtd ec ided ito n the m erit s, fin d ing that the D istri ct C o u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng the s ent ence . ( Suppl . A pp. 31- 33. ) A ppel l ant t hen fi l ed a mot i on forr ehea r i ng, cont endi ng thati tw as i m pr operforthi s C our tt o rul e on t hati s s ue. W e agr eed, not i ng t hatt he us ual rul e of thum b on a § 2255 ca s e i s t o r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ts o as t o al l ow A ppel l antt o be i n t he s ame posi t i on as i f he ha d eff ect i ve couns el . See Shedr i ck, s upr a, at303. T hus , w e vac at ed thatpor t i on of the opi ni on and r emanded f o r re -e n tryo f

th e in iti a l se n ten c e so th a t th e re c a n b e a tim e lya p p e a l.. . T h is

. . . w i l l gi ve [A ppel l ant ] t he oppor tuni t ypr oper l yt o r ai s e the i s s ue t hathe had p re v io u slye x p re ss e d a d e sire f o r th is C o u rt to re v iew a n d w h ich h e e x p licitly p rese rve d in his p lea ag ree m en t an d co ll o q u y : the pro p ri ety o f h is u p w ard departur e.8

I d. O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfol l ow ed ourdi r ect i ve, i m pos i ng the s ame se nt ence i tdeemed appr opr i at e att he February2003 s ent enci ng hear i ng. T hi s s ent ence w as r eim p o se d n o tw ith sta n d in g A p p e llan t’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld c o n d u c t a de novo s ent enci ng hear i ng cons i s t entw i t h t he demands of U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , deci ded tw o y ear s aft erA ppel l ant ’ s i ni t i al s ent enci ng, and not w i t hs t andi ng an ext ens i ve col l oquybetw een J udge D avi s and A ppel l antr egar di ng A ppel l ant ’ s cert i fi cat es of m er i tat t ai ned i n pr i s on. J udge D avi s expl ai ned thathe w as b o u n d b yo u r d ire c tiv e , an d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, he w o u ld im p o se th e sa m e se n ten c e e v e n if B o o k er g o v ern ed the c ase . (A p p . 1 2 1 -22 . ) I I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he s t andar d forr evi ew i ng w hetheran upw ar d departur e w as perm i s s i bl ygr ant ed undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes i s pl enary . See U ni t ed St at es v. H i m l er , 355 F. 3d 735, 741 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T hi s C our tt hen r evi ew s the r eas onabl enes s of the depa r tur e foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . Y e a m a n , 1 9 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 5 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Factual det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng s ent enci ng ar e r evi ew ed forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. B ecke t t , 208 F. 3d 140, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . Fi nal l y , the s t andar d forr evi ew i ng w hetheran app el l at e w ai ver i s enfo rceabl e i s de novo . See U ni t ed St at es v. J acks on, 523 F. 3d 234, 2 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).9 I V. DI S CU S S I ON A . T he U pw ard D epart ure A p p ell an t fi rstco n tend s tha t th e e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o w arran t an u p w ard departur e i n t hi s cas e. I n A ppel l ant ’ s w or ds , “[t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng w as f arf r om overw helm i ng .” (A p p e llan t B r., p. 1 3 .) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). P o in ted ly , this C irc u it h a s n e v e r re q u ire d su c h a h ig h b u rd e n o f p ro o f a t se n ten c in g . In d e e d , w e h a v e h e ld th a t a d istric t co u rt a p p lies th e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e sta n d a rd w h e n d e ter m in in g f a c ts r el evantt o s ent enci ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 568 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en b a n c ); and

U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T hos e fa ctual det erm i nat i ons ar e then r evi ew ed us i ng the def er ent i al cl earerr ors t andar d. R i t a v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 1 U .S . -- -, 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 7 1 (2 0 0 7 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcomm i tcl earerr orw hen i tconcl uded that A ppel l antfi r ed the gun att he pas s engervan. W hi l e ther e mayhave be en a di s cr epanc y w i t h r es pectt o t he s hi r tA ppel l antw or e atthe r el evantt i m e, thatdi s cr epanc yw as r es ol ved byt he C our taft err eca l l i ng N guy en t o t es t i fy . ( A pp. 93- 94. ) T he fol l ow i ng col l oquybetw een the C our tand N guy en t ook pl ace : C o u rt: [ Y ]o u to o k th e m b a c k to w h e re y o u w e re b e in g sh o t at? W i t ness: Y es. C o u rt: O k a y . A n d th a t’s w h e n y o u sa w th e m a n th a t th e ytac k led , rig h t? W i t ness: Y es.10

C o u rt: O k a y . S o th e m a n th a t th e ytac k led , w h e re w a s h e sta n d in g in

r el at i on t o w her e the man w ho s hotaty ou w as s t andi ng? W i t nes s : Sam e pl ace . C our t : Sam e pl ace ? W i t ness: Y es. Wh e n t h i s c o l l o q u yi s j u x t a p o s e d wi t h th e f a c t s th a t : ( 1 ) th e p o l i c e s t a t i o n wa s o n l ya t wo bl ocks fr om t he s cene of the s hoot i ng, ( 2) A ppel l ant ’ s gun had s i x empt ys hel l cas i ngs w hen he w as arr es t ed, and ( 3) t he C our tfound N guy en’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e, i ti s evi dent t hat the C ou rt ’s fi nd i ng t hat A pp el l ant fi red the g un w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. A ppel l antfur t hercont ends t hat“[a ] j uryfi ndi ng w as nece s s aryt o det erm i ne” w h ethe r A p p ell an t sho t atthe v an . T h e q u esti o n o f w h ethe r a juryfin d ing w as n ec essa ry t o d e t e r mi n e t h e f

a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rAp p e l l a n t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g wa s a n s we r e d b yth e S u p r e me C o u rtin U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). In th at ca se, th e S u p rem e C o u rt hel d i n par tt hatt he Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o t r i al byj uryi s noti m pl i cat ed dur i ng s ent enci ng unl es s t he s ent ence exce eds the s t atut orym axi m um . I d. at259. W her eas her e, t he s t atut or ym axi m um forA ppel l ant ’ s offe ns e w as t en y ear s and the r ange r ecomm ended w a s 8 7 to 1 0 8 m o n th s , A p p e lla n t w a s n o t e n title d to a ju ry f in d in g a t s e n te n c in g . A ppel l ant ’ s nextcont ent i on i s that , even i f i ti s true thathe fi r ed the gun atthe m ovi ng pas s engervan, t hatfac tal one does notm ake thi s cas e s uffi ci ent l y“s peci al or

“ u n u su a l” to w a rra n t an u p w a rd d e p a rtu re o f e ig h t lev e ls. In m a k in g th is a rg u m e n t, A ppel l antdoes hi m s el f no fa vorbyci t i ng tw o keypr ovi s i ons of the U . S. Sent enci ng11

G ui del i nes . Fi r s t , A ppel l antci t es § 5K 2. 0, and s t at es that“a di s t r i ctcour tm aygr antan upw ar d departur e w her e ci r cumst ance s exi s tthatthe gui del i nes do notadequa t el yt ake in to c o n s id e ra tio n .” (A p p e lla n t B r., p . 1 5 .) S e c o n d , A p p e lla n t c ite s U .S .S .G . § 5 k 2 .6 w hich provides: I f a w eapon ordanger ous i ns t rum ent al i t yw as us ed orpos s es s ed i n t he comm i s s i on of the offens e[, ] t he courtm ayi ncr eas e the s ent ence above the authori zed g uidel i nes range. T he ex t ent of t he incr ease ordi nari l ysho u ld depend on the dange r ous nes s of t he w eapon, t he manneri n w hi ch i tw as us ed, an d the e x tent to w h ich i ts u se en d an g ere d o thers. T h e disch arg e of a f ir ea rm m i ghtw arr anta s ubs t ant i al s ent ence i ncr eas e. ( A ppel l antB r . , p. 16. ) A ppel l antt hen as s ert s , “[a ] l t hough a fi r earm i s a dange r ous w e a p o n , it s d a n g e ro u sn e ss is ta k e n in to a c c o u n t u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), f e lo n in pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm . ” ( A ppel l antB r . , p. 16. ) A ppel l antdi s r egar ds the fi ndi ng thathe d isc h a rg e d th e f

ire a rm tw ice , an d in ste a d c o n ten d s th a t th e w e a p o n w a s u se d o n ly“ in conj unct i on w i t h a drug cr i m e”, w hi ch al r eadypr ovi ded a f our - l evel s ent ence enhanc ement . ( I d. ) W hen A ppel l antdoes addr es s the fi r earm di s char ge, he as s ert s that

“ n o o n e w a s in

ju re d ” a n d th a t “n o o n e w a s e n d a n g e re d ” . (A p p . 1 6 -1 7 .) A p p e llan t is corr ectt hatnei t heroccupa ntof the van w as i nj ur ed, buti tfl i es i n t he fa ce of comm on s ens e t o s ayt hat“no one w as endange r ed” w hen A ppel l antfi r ed tw i ce a ta movi ng van, once hi t t i ng t he hood, and once hi t t i ng the w i nds hi el d. I ndeed, thi s s i tuat i on i s notone t ypi cal l ycont empl at ed byt he gui del i nes . I n s uch a c as e, the D i s t r i ctC our tw as a u th o ri z e d to im p o s e “ a s u b s ta n tia l s e n te n c e in c re a s e ” p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .6 . F in a lly, A p p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e e x te n t o f th e d e p a rt u re w a s u n re a s o n a b le .Par t i es ar e ent i t l ed r eas onabl e not i ce a s t o t he gr ounds fordepartur e. B urns v. U ni t ed 3 St at es , 501 U . S. 129, 138- 39 ( 1991) . A s the U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ceri nform ed the D i s tr i ct C our tt hati t“coul d upw ar dl ydepartbeca us e [A ppel l ant ] di s char ged a f i r earm dur i ng t he offe ns e s t r i ki ng a vehi cl e cont ai ni ng tw o pas s enger s ”, s ee P. S. R . , Par t . E , ¶ 63, and the G overnm ents ubm i t t ed a s ent enci ng m emora ndum t o t he C our tand A ppel l antw hi ch expr es s l ycal l ed foran upw ar d departur e of e i ghtl evel s , ( A ppel l ee Br. , p. 9. ) , not i ce w as pr oper l ygi ven. 12 ( A ppel l antB r . , p. 17. ) H e s peci fi cal l yar gues thatan ei ght - l evel departur e w as “t oo l ar ge”, and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ycal cul at ed the depa r tur e. ( I d. ) I f a D i s t r i ct C our t“fi nds t hatther e exi s t s an aggr avat i ng orm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance of a ki nd, ort o a degr ee, notadequa t el yt aken i nt o cons i der at i on . . . bythe gui del i nes ”, then the courtm ay departfr om t he “r el evantgui del i ne r ange” . See U ni t ed St at es v. Q ueens bor ough, 227 3 F . 3 d 1 4 9 , (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . K iku m u ra, 91 8 F . 2 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 )) . H er e, t he G overnm entanal ogi zed A ppel l ant ’ s conductt o att empt ed murde r , and r ecomm ended a n offe ns e l evel of 33. ( A pp. 91. ) A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the G overnm entr emar ked thatt he s ame offens e l evel w oul d r es ul ti f the C our tadded f our l evel s foreac h vi ct i m w ho w as as s aul t ed w hen A ppel l antfi r ed tw i ce a tthe van. ( A pp. 91- 92. ) W e have hel d t hat , w her e an appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance exi s t s , r eas oni ng by analogy“t o the guidel i nes . . . i s a useful and ap propri at e t oo l for determ i ning w hat offense l evel a def

endant ’ s conductm os tcl os el yappr oxi m at es . ” Q ueens bor ough, 227 F. 3d at 16 0. B ecause A pp el l ant fi red hi s w eapo n tw i ce ata m ov i ng veh i cl e w i t h tw o p assengers, hi s conductdoes appr oxi m at e thatof att empt ed murde r . M ur deri s defi ned as “the13

u n la w f u l k illin g o f

a h u m a n b e in g w ith m a lic e a f o re th o u g h t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 1 (a ). M al i ce a for ethought“i s nots ynonym ous w i t h pr emedi t at i on . . . butm ayal s o be i nferr ed f ro m c irc u m sta n c e s w h ich sh o w a w a n to n a n d d e p ra v e d sp irit, a m in d b e n t o n e v il m i s chi ef w i t houtr egar d t o i t s cons equenc es . ” G ov’ tof V i r gi n I s l ands v. L ake, 362 F. 2d 770, 774 ( 3d C i r . 1966) . H er e, A ppel l ant ’ s conductepi t om i zes a “w ant on and depr aved s p i r i t . ” M o r e o v e r , a s J u d g e Da v i s t o l d Ap p e l l a n ta tth e r e - s e n t e n c i n g , “ wh e n y o u f i r e t wo b u ll ets, that b ec o m es a n elem en t of p rem ed it ati o n . ” (A p p . 1 1 8 . ) A p p ell an t r ef

u tes th e a n alog yto attem p ted m u rde r, instead co n tend ing that a f o u rle v e l u p w a rd d e p a rt u re c o n s is te n t w ith a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt is th e p ro p e r c ro s s -r e f e re n c e . (A p p ell an t B r. , p . 1 8 . ) H e c it es U n it ed S tat es v . C o rbin , 9 9 8 F . 2 d 1 3 7 7 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), and not es t hatt he Seventh C i r cui taff i r m ed a s ent ence bas ed on a vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 1) – w hi ch w as t hen cr os s - r efe r ence d w i t h t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne for ag g rav ated assa u lt . (Id.) A p p ell an t’ s reli an ce o n that ca se is m isgu ided , h o w ev er, beca us e the fa ct s i n C orbi n ar e i nappos i t e t o t he pr es entcas e. I n C orbi n, the appe l l ant neverfi r ed hi s w eapon. H e di d pr es s i tagai ns thi s ex- gi r l fr i end’ s head, though, w hi ch su b se q u e n tlyc a u se d a “ ro u n d re d d e n e d sp o t”. C o rb in , 9 9 8 F .2 d a t 1 3 8 0 . S u c h a n a c t is p lai n lyco n sist en t w ith h o rn b o o k ag g rav ated assa u lt , as th e a p p ell an t cau sed b o d il yinjury w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n . W AYNE R. L A F AV E & A US TIN W. S C OTT , J R ., C R IM IN A L L AW 608 (1 9 7 2 ). Byc o n t r a s t , Ap p e l l a n ti n t h i s c a s e a c tu a l l yd i s c h a r g e d h i s we a p o n twi c e , e a c h t i me14

ai m i ng ata movi ng van w i t h t w o pas s enger s , and ea ch t i m e hi t t i ng the van. A s s uch, t he tw o c a se s a re in a p p o site . In a n ye v e n t, i t ca n n o t b e sa id th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on w hen i tdepart ed upw ar d ei ghtl evel s . T hi s concl us i on i s but t r es s ed bythat not i on t hat“[t ] he s ent enci ng j udge has acc es s t o, and gr eat erfami l i ar i t yw i t h, the i ndi vi dual cas e and the i ndi vi dual defe ndantbefor e hi m than the C om m i s s i on orthe a p p e a ls c o u rt .” R ita v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 1 U .S . -- -, 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 9 (2 0 0 7 ). B . R eas onabl enes s of

t he Sent ence T he s econd i s s ue pr es ent l ybefor e thi s C our ti s w hetherA ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. B eca us e w e hol d t hatA ppel l antw ai ved thi s gr ound forappea l i n hi s pl ea ag ree m en t, w e n ee d n o t r ea ch the m erit s o f th is argu m en t. A s n o ted a b o v e, A p p ell an t’ s plea agreem ent cont ai ned t he fo l l ow i ng rel evan tt erm s:

( A ) N ot w i t hs t andi ng the w ai verpr ovi s i on above, i f the governm ent appea l s fr om t he s ent ence , then t he def endantm ayfi l e a di r ect appea l of hi s s ent ence . ( B) I f t h e g o v e r n me n t d o e s n o t a p p e a l , t h e n . . . t h e d e f e n dantm ay f ile a d ire c t ap p e a l b u t m a yra ise o n lyc laim s th a t: ( i ) i f the s ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um ; or ( i i ) i f t he j udge er r oneous l y depar t e d u p war d f r o m t he o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e . H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexce ed the s t atut orym axi m um ( t en y ear s ) w hen i ts ent ence d A p p e llan t to 9 6 m o n th s, n o r d id th e G o v e rn m e n t a p p e a l th e se n ten c e . A p p e llan t’s o n lyv a lid gr ound for appea l , t her efor e, i s w hether t he D i s t r i ct C our t err oneous l y depart ed upw ar d fr om t he otherw i s e ap pl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange, pur s uantt o 10( B ) ( i i ) of the pl eaI n K hat t ak, w e not ed thatt en otherC our t s of A ppeal s have he l d w ai ver s of appe al 4 gener al l yperm i s s i bl e and e nfor cea bl e. I d. at560- 61 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. T eet er , 257 F . 3 d 1 4 , 2 1 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); U n it ed S tat es v . F ishe r, 2 3 2 F . 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 232 F. 3d 399, 403 ( 4th C i r . 2000) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B r anam, 231 F . 3 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 2 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . F lem ing , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 3 -64 (6th C ir . 2001) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J emi s on, 237 F. 3d 911, 916- 18 ( 7th C i r . 2000) ; U ni t ed St at es v. E s t r ada- B ahena , 201 F. 3d 1070, 1071 ( 8th C i r . 2000) ; U ni t ed St at es v. N guy en, 235 F. 3d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 4 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . R u b io, 23 1 F . 3 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . H o w le, 1 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 6 8 -69 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). 15 agr eement . W e addr es s ed t hat ar gum ent above, and concl uded t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not e rr o n e o u s ly d e p a rt u p w a rd . W ai ver s of appe al s ar e gene r al l y“perm i s s i bl e and e nfor cea bl e. ” See U ni t ed St at es v . K h a ttak , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W h e n w a iv e rs o f a p p e a l ar e e n ter e d in to 4 “know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ” theyar e pr es um ed val i d “unl es s they work a m is car r i age of j us t i ce .” S e e U n ited S tate s v . L o c k e tt, 4 0 6 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). L o c k e tt i s s im ilar to th e c a se b e f o re u s. T h e a p p e llan t in th a t ca se p lea d e d g u ilty a n d w a s s e n ten c e d p re -B o o k e r. Id . H e th e re a f ter f iled a n a p p e a l, ch a llen g in g h is s ent ence pos t - B ooker . I d. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued thatthe s ubs equentdevel opm enti n t he l aw i nval i dat ed the appe al w ai vercont ai ned i n hi s pl ea a gr eement , ther ebygi vi ng hi m t he ri g h t t o ap p ea l his sen tenc e. Id. T h is C ir cu itrejected that arg u m en t, h o lding that “w h ere a c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t h a s v o lu n tar ilya n d k n o w in g lye n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t in w h ich h e o r sh e w a iv e s th e rig h t to a p p e a l, th e d e f e n d a n t is n o t en tit led to re se n ten c in g in l i ghtof B ooker . ” I d. H er e, A ppel l antw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l and w as s ent ence d pr eB ooker . A s a r es ul t , he i s notent i t l ed t o a de novo sen tenc ing h ea ri n g in li g h t of B o o k er,16

norcan he now chal l enge hi s s ent ence as unr eas onabl e. F o rwh a t e v e rr e a s o n , Ap p e l l a n td o e s n o ta d d r e s s th i s wa i v e ri s s u e i n h i s b r i e f. As a r es ul t , t her e i s no di s put e as t o w hetherenfor cementof the w ai verr es ul t s i n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. T he G overnm entcont ends thati tw oul d not , and ci t es ourdeci s i on in U n ited S tate s v . Ja c k so n , 5 2 3 F .3 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) to su b sta n tiate its cont ent i on. L i ke the s i tuat i on her e, the appe l l ant ’ s appea l i n t hatcas e r el i ed w hol l yon t he cl ai m t hatt he under l y i ng s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. I d. W e s t at ed: I n l i ghtof G a ll ’s defe r ent i al a bus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d forr evi ew i ng s en t e n c e a p p e a l s , i t wi l l b e a r a r e a n d u n u s u a l s i tu a t i o n whe n c l a i ms o f an unr eas onabl e s ent ence , s t andi ng al one, w i l l be s uffi ci ent t o i nval i dat e a w ai ver beca us e of a m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. Id . (c itin g G a ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , supra , at 60 0 ). E v e n th o u g h A p p e llan t d o e s n o t ad d re ss th e w a iv e r a rg u m e n t, ou r re a so n in g in J acks on appl i es s quar el yt o t he ca s e bef or e the C our t . A ppel l ants t at ed thathe under s t ood t he t erm s of the pl ea a gr eement , and he ha s al l eged nothi ng m or e on thi s s econd gr ound t han mer e unr eas onabl enes s . A s forw hetherthi s cas e cons t i tut es one of the “r ar e and u n u su al” situ ati o n s w h ere the c lai m o f u n rea so n ab lene ss alo n e c o u ld inv ali d ate a w aive r, w e hol d t hati tdoes not . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tanal ogi zed A ppel l ant ’ s conductt o at t empt ed murde runderthe gui del i nes . T he s ubs equents ent ence w as cons i s t entw i t h t he pl ea a gr eement , w hi ch s t at ed that“the C ourtm aym ake f actual and l egal det erm i nat i ons t hatdi ffe rfr om thes e s t i pul at i ons and thatm ayr es ul ti n an i ncr eas e ordecr eas e i n t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange a nd the s ent ence thatm aybe17

i m pos ed. ” ( Suppl . A pp. 3. ) I n s um , A ppel l anthas w ai ved hi s s t atut oryr i ghtt o appea l on th is g ro u n d . V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he above r eas ons and the r eas ons the D i s t r i ctC our ts etfor t h, w e af fi r m the s ent ence of J ames Shedr i ck r e- or der ed on N ovember13, 2007.