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 1-16-2007 

# U SA v . G arc i a-M ore no 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 . 05-4274

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_2007

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 2007 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 . G ar c i a -M or e no " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1771. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1771T he H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, 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. 05- 4274 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

A ppel l ee, v. RU BE N D. GAR CI A- M OR E NA,

A p p e llan t.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 01- 729) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a),

N ovember27, 2006 B efor e: FU E N T E S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed J anuary16, 2007)2 _____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Fol l ow i ng a benc h t r i al on s t i pul at ed fa ct s , appel l antw as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acy to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te in e x c e ss o f f iv e k ilo g ra m s o f

c o c a in e in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 6 a n d 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ). O n re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g in ac co rda n ce w ith U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), the D istri ct C o u rt sen tenc ed ap p ell an t t o 1 4 0 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. A p p ell an t asserts nu m ero u s erro rs w i t h r es pectt o t hats ent ence . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . See U ni t ed St at es v. L l oy d, 469 F. 3d 319, 321 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . For t h e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I . Backg r ound O n N ovember1, 2001, agent s fr om the D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on arr es t ed appel l ant , al ong w i t h hi s t w o co- cons pi r at or s , L ui s V al enci a- G ar ci a and Ri car do Fr ancoG arc ia, af

ter a three -da ysu rve il lanc e o p era ti o n at an ap artm en t com p lex in E d g ew ater, N ew J er s ey . A gent s arr es t ed appe l l antand Fr anco- G ar ci a i n t he parki ng gar age of the apart m entcompl ex l oadi ng a ca rw i t h t w o s ui t cas es , eac h of w hi ch cont ai ned tw enty - fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. A gent s pul l ed V al enci a- G ar ci a overi n a pi ck- up truck ata nea rbyT he D i s t r i ctC our tus ed the 2003 ver s i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he 1 gui del i nes pr ovi s i ons t hatar e r el evantt o t hi s appea l di d notchange i n t he 2004 ver s i on, t he ver s i on i n eff

ectatt he t i m e of a ppel l ant ’ s r es ent enci ng i n Sept ember2005. 3 lo c a tio n ; in s id e o f

th e tru c k w a s a d u f

f e l b a g c o n ta in in g tw e n ty-s ix k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e . W hen age nt s s ear ched the apa r t m entfr om w hi ch al l thr ee men w er e obs erved comi ng and goi ng dur i ng t he cour s e of the s ur vei l l ance oper at i on, theyfound an a ddi t i onal 200 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. A ppel l ant , al ong w i t h hi s t w o co- cons pi r at or s , w er e s ubs equent l yi ndi ct ed foronecountof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846 and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , an off ens e that carr i es a s t atut or ym axi m um of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . A ft erthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed defe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he drugs as evi dence , V al enci a- G ar ci a pl eade d gui l t yand w a s s e n ten c e d to se v e n ty -e ig h t m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. B o th a p p e llan t an d F ra n c o -G a rc ia i nform ed the governm entt hatt heyw i s hed t o ent ercondi t i onal gui l t ypl eas pr es ervi ng t hei rr i ghtt o appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of thei rm ot i on t o s uppr es s . T he governm entdeni ed thei rr eques tand, on Sept ember23, 2003, both m en w er e convi ct ed a f te r a b e n c h tr ia l o n s tip u la te d f a c ts . A t a h e a rin g h e ld o n F e b ru a ry9 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d a p p e llan t to 151 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , and Fr anco- G ar ci a t o 63 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ppel l ant 1 and Fr anco- G ar ci a fi l ed a c ons ol i dat ed appe al w i t h t hi s C our t , ar gui ng thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n deny i ng t hei rm ot i on t o s uppr es s . I n addi t i on, theyr ai s ed a numberof4

chal l enges t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . O n M ay11, 2005, w e af

fi r m ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s . T hen, aft er not i ng t hat“the s ent enci ng i s s ues appel l antr ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned bythe D i s t r i ct C our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , ” w e r emanded the mat t ert o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e B o o k e r d e c is io n . A t th e re sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , h eld o n S ep tem b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istri ct C o u rt adopt ed al l of i t s pr i orfac tual fi ndi ngs and gui del i nes det erm i nat i ons , butgr ant ed appel l antan addi t i onal one- l evel dow nw ar d departur e forpr etr i al condi t i ons of con fi nem ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtt hereaft er s entenced ap pell ant t o 1 40 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent , el even mont hs s hor t erthan the or i gi nal s ent ence i m pos ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II . A n a ly sis A ppel l antas s ert s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by : ( 1) i m pos i ng a vi ndi ct i ve s ent ence on r emand; ( 2) fai l i ng t o gr anthi m a r educt i on forhi s m i norr ol e i n t he cons pi r acy ; ( 3) fai l i ng t o gr anthi m an addi t i onal one- poi ntr educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y ; ( 4) fai l i ng t o gr anthi m a tw o- poi nts afe t y - val ve r educt i on pur s uantt o § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 6) of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ; ( 5) s ent enci ng hi m t o a l ongert erm of i m pr i s onm entt han hi s co- defe ndant ; and ( 6) r efus i ng t o dow nw ar dl ydepartfr om the gui del i nes r ange. I n addi t i on, appel l antar gues thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve atthe sent encing st age o f t he p roceedings.B eca us e of the l ar ge quant i t yof drugs i nvol ved–appr oxi m at el y275 ki l ogr ams of 2 c o c a in e – a p p e llan t w a s a ss ig n e d a b a se o f f e n se lev e l o f

th irty -e ig h t. A s d isc u ss e d late r in t hi s opi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen gr ant ed appe l l anta tw o- poi nts afe t y - val ve r educt i on p u rsu a n t to § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(6 ), an d a tw o -p o in t re d u c tio n f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty p u rsua n t t o § 3 E 1 . 1 (a). 5 I n gener al , a courtof appe al s gi ves defe r ence t o a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent enci ng det erm i nat i ons and thus r evi ew s s ent ence s on an abus e of di s cr et i on bas i s . L l oy d, 469 F . 3 d at 32 1 . T o the e x tent that this ap p ea l i n v o lves co n tention s tha t th e d istri ct co u rt m ade a m i s t ake of

l aw , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . I d. T o the ext entthatappel l antadvanc es ar gum ent s t hathe fa i l ed t o pr es erve i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , ourr evi ew i s confi ned bythe p la in e rr o r s ta n d a rd . Id . A . V i ndi c t i ve s e nt e nc i ng A t th e o ri g inal sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rtca lculated ap p ell an t’ s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a t1 5 1 t o 1 8 8 m o n th s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t , b a s e d o n a n o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

th i r tyfour and a c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d appel l antt o 151 2 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t he l ow es ts ent ence perm i t t ed underthe appl i cabl e gui del i nes ra n g e . O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed al l of i t s pr i orfac tual fi ndi ngs and gui del i nes det erm i nat i ons exce ptt hati tgr ant ed appe l l antan addi t i onal one- l evel d o w n w ard d ep arture in o rde r t o take into a cc o u n t th e h arsh co n d it ion s o f a p p ell an t’ s p retri al co n fin em en t atthe P assa ic C o u n tyJail . A p p ell an t’ s o ff en se lev el w as th ere fo re r educe d fr om t hi r t y - fourt o t hi r t y - t hr ee, r es ul t i ng i n a new gui del i nes r ange of 135 t o 168I tappea r s t hatappel l antfai l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our t . I n any 3 event , w e fi nd t hatt he out come i s t he s ame w hetherw e appl ypl ai n err ororde novo r e v i e w. 6 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced app el l ant t o 1 40 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent , att he l ow erend of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange. A ppel l antr ecogni zes ( as he must ) thathi s s ent ence on r emand w as el even mont hs s hor t ert han the s ent ence or i gi nal l yi m pos ed. A ppel l antnevert hel es s cont ends thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n vi ndi ct i ve s ent enci ng i n vi ol at i on of hi s Fi fth A m endmentdue pr oces s r i ght s . I n appel l ant ’ s vi ew , “he e s s ent i al l yr ece i ved a mor e s ever e s ent ence on 3 rem and becau se the co urtsent enced him i n the m i dd l e of the gu i deli nes range. W hereas, he w as s ent ence d att he bott om of the gui del i ne r ange a thi s or i gi nal s ent enci ng. ” A s c re a tiv e a s a p p e llan t’s th e o rym ig h t b e , itsim p lyd o e s n o t b rin g h is c a se w ith in th e a m b it o f

th e F if th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st v in d ictiv e se n ten c in g . S e e N o rth C ar ol i na v. Pear ce, 395 U . S. 711, 725- 26 ( 1969) , overrul ed i n par tbyA l abama v. Sm i th, 490 U . S. 794, 803 ( 1989) . I ndeed, the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e i s devoi d of anyfac t s that w oul d al l ow t hi s C our tt o i nfert hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a ha r s hers ent ence on r emand i n or dert o puni s h appel l antforappea l i ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he fa ct of the mat t eri s , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a mor e l eni ents ent ence on r emand. B . M i nor rol e re duct i on A ppel l antnextar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have gr ant ed hi m a tw o- l evel m i norr ol e r educt i on beca us e he w as s i m pl ya cour i eri n a l ar gerdrug- t r aff i cki ng7

ent erpr i s e. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the r educt i on w as bas ed on a f actual det erm i nat i on, w e r evi ew t he dec i s i on forcl earerr or . See U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 280 F. 3d 318, 351 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A deci s i on i s cl ear l yerr oneous i f the r evi ew i ng courti s l eft w ith the d ef

init e a n d firm co n v ict ion b ase d o n all o f th e e v iden ce that the d istri ct co u rt m a d e a m is ta k e . Id . S ect i on 3B 1. 2 o f t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes prov i des: B as ed on def

endant ’ s r ol e i n the off

ens e, decr eas e the off

ens e l evel as foll ow s: ( a ) I f t h e d e f e n d a n tw a s a m i n i m a l p a r t i c i p a n ti n a n y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y, decrease by4 level s. ( b ) I f t h e d e f e n d a n tw a s a m i n o rp a r t i c i p a n ti n a n y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y, decrease by2 level s. In cases fal l i ng betw een (a) and (b), decrease by3 level s. U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 3B 1. 2 ( 2003) . T o r ece i ve an a dj us t m entpur s uant to § 3 B 1 .2 , a d e f

e n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g th a t (1 ) th e re w e re m u lti p le par t i ci pant s i n t he off

ens e, and ( 2) t he def

endantw as among t he l eas tcul pabl e of the p a rt ic ip a n ts . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . Is a z a -Z a p a ta , 1 4 8 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 8 -4 3 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T her e i s no di s put e thatt he fi r s tr equi r ementi s m eti n t hi s cas e. W ith re sp e c t to th e se c o n d re q u ire m e n t, w e h a v e h e ld th a t “th e f a c t th a t a defe ndant ’ s part i ci pat i on i n a drug oper at i on w as l i m i t ed t o t hatof a c our i eri s notal one i ndi cat i ve of a m i nororm i ni m al r ol e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. H eadl ey , 923 F. 2d 1079, 1084 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . R ather , “the cul pabi l i t yof a de fenda ntcour i erm us tdepend ne ces s ar i l yon s uch fa ct or s as t he natur e of the def endant ’ s r el at i ons hi p t o otherpart i ci pant s , theA t th e o rig in a l se n ten c in g h e a rin g , d e f e n se c o u n se l as se rte d th a t ap p e llan t sim p ly 4 f o llo w e d R a m ire z ’s in stru c tio n s in “ se c u rin g ” th e a p a rtm e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded thatt hi s i s s ue w as notdi s pos i t i ve of w hetherappel l ants houl d be gr ant ed a m i norr ol e r educt i on. 8 im p o rt an ce o f th e d ef

en d an t’ s ac ti o n s to the su cc ess o f th e v en ture, an d the d ef en d an t’ s a w a re n e ss o f

th e n a tu re a n d sc o p e o f th e c rim in a l en terp rise .” Id . D istric t co u rts s h o u ld cons i dereac h of thes e fa ct or s i n r el at i on t o the otherpart i ci pant s i n the cons pi r acy . I s aza Z a p a ta , 1 4 8 F .3 d a t 2 3 9 . I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatappel l ant ’ s co- cons pi r at or , Fr ancoG ar ci a, qual i fi ed fora tw o- l evel m i norr ol e r educt i on, butdeni ed appe l l anta s i m i l ar re d u c tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t w h ile th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t F ra n c o -G a rc ia knew anyot herpart i ci pant s i n t he cons pi r acyot herthan hi s co- defe ndant s , oras s i s t ed w i t h t he di s t r i but i on of any“l oads ” otherthan the one f orw hi ch he w as convi ct ed, a p p e lla n t p la y e d a m o re s ig n if ic a n t r o le in th e o v e ra ll c ri m in a l s c h e m e . Speci fi cal l y , r el y i ng on t he fa ct s s etfor t h i n appel l ant ’ s pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatappel l antw as i n di r ectcomm uni cat i on w i t h an i ndi vi dual named C ar l os R ami r ez, a hi gher - up i n t he drug tr aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e. R ami r ez pr ovi ded appe l l antw i t h cont act s t o s ecur e apa r t m ent s i n N ew Y or k and N ew J er s eyfor us e as a di s t r i but i on bas e, and entrus t ed appe l l antw i t h m oneyforr entand bi l l s , and a c ar t o conductbus i nes s . W i t h r es pectt o t he ac tual di s t r i but i on of the drugs , an uni dent i fi ed 4 cal l eri nform ed appe l l antof s peci fi c pi ck- up and dr op- off l ocat i ons , w hi ch appe l l antt hen9

c o m m u n ica ted to R a m ire z . A lth o u g h a p p e llan t w a s n o t d ire c tlyc o m p e n sa ted f o r th is as s i s t ance , he negot i at ed a de al w i t h R ami r ez i n w hi ch he w oul d be pai d $60 foreac h k ilo g ra m h e tra n sp o rte d , as c o m p a re d to th e $ 4 0 p e r k ilo g ra m th a t F ra n c o -G a rc ia w a s to r ece i ve. T he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor tfur t heri ndi cat ed thatappel l antpart i ci pat ed in th e d is tr ib u tio n o f

le a s t tw o o th e r l o a d s p ri o r t o th e o n e f o r w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . A ft ernot i ng t hatappel l antw as “ce r t ai nl ynotl i vi ng hi gh off the hog, ” and “ di dn’ tappea r t o have moneyfr om anys al es s o t hatther e w as evi dence of anyfl as h ar ound, ” the D i s tr i ct C o u rt n e v e rth e les s c o n c lu d e d th a t b a se d o n th e f a c ts p re se n ted it co u ld n o t p ro p e rly c h a ra c te ri z e a p p e lla n t’ s ro le in th e o f f e n s e a s “ m in o r.” W e h a v e p re v io u slyn o ted th a t “d istric t co u rts a re a llo w e d b ro a d d isc re tio n in a p p lyin g [ § 3 B 1 .2 ], a n d th e irru lin g s a re le f t la rg e ly u n d is tu rb e d b yth e c o u rt s o f a p p e a l.” See I s aza - Z apat a, 148 F. 3d at238. I n t hi s cas e, the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eas ons fordecl i ni ng t o gr antt he r educt i on w er e ca r eful l yexpl ai ned on the r ecor d, s uppor t ed bythe evi dence , and ent i r el ycons i s t entw i t h T hi r d C i r cui tpr ece dent . See U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez, 342 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n stru cti n g the d istri ct co u rto n rem an d to co n side r fa ctors s uch as w hetherdefe ndant ’ s conductw as an i s ol at ed eve ntorr epea tact i vi t y , the amount of m oneydefe ndantw as t o r ece i ve, defe ndant ’ s know l edge of ot heract or s i n t he c o n s p ir a c y , a n d th e im p o rt a n c e o f d e f e n d a n t’ s a c tio n s to th e s u c c e s s o f th e v e n tu re ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e re

jec t ap p e llan t’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h im a tw o- poi ntm i norr ol e r educt i on.In 2 0 0 3 , C o n g re s s a m e n d e d § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) t o re q u ir e a m o tio n b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. 5 See U ni t ed St at es v. C has e, 466 F. 3d 310, 315 ( 4th C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Pr os ecut or i al Re me d i e s a n d Ot h e rTo o l s t o e n d t h e Ex p l o i t a t i o n o f Ch i l d r e n To d a yAc t( “ P ROTE CT A c t” ), P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -2 1 § 4 0 1 (g ), 1 1 7 S ta t. 6 5 0 , 6 7 1 -7 2 (2 0 0 3 )) . 10 C . A cc ep tan ce o f re sp o n sibil it y T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed appe l l anta tw o- poi ntr educt i on foracc ept ance of resp o n sibil ityp u rsua n t t o § 3 E 1 . 1 o f th e S en tenc ing G u idelines , b u t den ied h im a third p o in t b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t m o v e f o r s u c h a re d u c tio n . S ect i on 3E 1. 1 p rovi des: ( a) I f the def

endantcl ear l ydemonstr at es acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yfor h is o f f e n s e , d e c re a s e th e o f

f e n s e le v e l b y2 le v e ls . ( b) I f the def

endantqual i fi es fora dec r eas e unders ubs ect i on ( a) , the o f f e n se lev e l d e ter m in e d p rio r to th e o p e ra tio n o f su b se c tio n (a ) is l evel 16 orgr eat er , and u p o n m o tio n o

f th e g o v e rn m e n t s t at i ng that t he def endanthas as s i s t ed author i t i es i n t he i nves t i gat i on or pr os ecut i on of hi s ow n m i s conductbyt i m el ynot i fy i ng author i t i es of hi s i nt ent i on t o ent era gui l t ypl ea, ther ebyperm i t t i ng the governm entt o avoi d pr epar i ng fortr i al and perm i t t i ng the g o v e r n m e n ta n d t h e c o u r tt o a l l o c a t e th e i rr e s o u r c e s e f f i c i e n t l y, d e c re a se th e o f

f e n se lev e l b ya n a d d iti o n a l 1 lev e l. U . S . S en tenc ing G u idelines M an u al § 3 E 1 . 1 (20 0 3 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o m m en tary to § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) e x p lain s in re lev a n t p a rt: B eca us e the G overnm enti s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe defe ndanthas as s i s t ed author i t i es i n a mannerthatavoi ds pr epar i ng for t r i al , an adj us t m entunders ubs ect i on ( b) m ayonl ybe gr ant ed upon a f or m al m o tio n b yth e G o v e rn m e n t a t th e tim e o f s e n te n c in g . I d. atcmt . n. 6. 5 A d istric t co u rt h a s th e lim ited a u th o rityto re v iew th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re f u sa l to11

m ove fora dow nw ar d departur e, and t o gr anta r emedy , i f i tfi nds thatthe r efus al w as i m pr oper–forexampl e, i f the r efus al w as bas ed on an unc ons t i tut i onal m ot i ve ( s uch as r ace orr el i gi on) , orl acke d a r at i onal r el at i ons hi p t o anyl egi t i m at e governm entobj ect i ve. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . A b u h o u ran , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 1 -12 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (§ 5 K 1 . 1 co n text); see also U n it ed S tat es v . S loley , 4 6 4 F . 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 0 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (§ 3 E 1 . 1 (b) c o n text); U ni t ed St at es v. E s pi noza- C ano, 456 F. 3d 1126, 1136 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M or eno- T r evi no, 432 F. 3d 1181, 1186 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. S m ith , 4 2 9 F .3 d 6 2 0 , 6 2 8 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s a m e ). H er e, appel l ant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o ent era gui l t ypl ea w as condi t i oned on pr es ervi ng h is rig h t to a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s e v id e n tiary ru lin g s. T h e g o v e rn m e n t ch o se n o t to acc epta condi t i onal gui l t ypl ea, atw hi ch poi ntthe part i es pr ocee ded t o t r i al . G i ven the r es our ces t he governm entw as for ced t o expend i n t r y i ng the ca s e, i tdeci ded nott o m ove foran addi t i onal one- l evel r educt i on pur s uantt o §3E 1. 1( b) . B as ed on thes e fa ct s , the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydecl i ned t o gr antappel l anta thi r d poi ntforacc ept ance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. D . “Saf

et y - val ve” re duct i on A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi m a tw o- l evel sa f e ty -v a lv e re d u c tio n p u rsu a n t to § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(6 ) o f th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s is p a ten tly m e ritles s. A re v iew o f

th e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e P ro b a tio n O f f ice re c o m m e n d e d in its pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eportt hatappel l antr ece i ve a tw o- l evel s afe t y - val ve r educt i on,12

t he governm entagr eed a tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng thats uch a r educt i on w as appr opr i at e, and the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the r educt i on. E . S en ten cin g d ispa rity A ppel l antar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have i m pos ed a s hor t ers ent ence beca us e of the di s par i tybetw een hi s s ent ence ( 140 m ont hs ) and Fr anco- G ar ci a’ s ( 63 m ont hs ) . A cr i m i nal defe ndant“has no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o be gi ven a s ent ence equal i n dur at i on t o t hatof hi s orherco- defe ndant s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Par ker , 462 F. 3d 273, 2 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . H art, 2 7 3 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). In add i t i on , a “dis pari t yof sen t ence b et w een co -defend ants do es not of i t sel f show an ab use of di s cr et i on. ” I d. at276- 77 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C i fuent es , 863 F. 2d 1149, 1156 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )) . H er e, appel l antr ece i ved a ha r s hers ent ence than hi s co- defe ndantbeca us e the D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that ap p ell an t w as n o t si m il arlysitu ated to h is co -de fe n d an t. R athe r, as pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatappel l antpl ay ed a mor e s i gni fi cant r ol e than Fr anco- G ar ci a i n t he off ens e. I n deny i ng the r educt i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tact ed w el l w i t hi n t he s cope of i t s author i t yand, as s etfor t h m or e ful l ybel ow , i t s deci s i on w as ent i r el ycons i s t entw i t h t he goal s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553. See i d. at277 ( “W e have concl uded thatC ongr es s ’ pr i m arygoal i n enac t i ng § 3553( a) ( 6) w as t o pr om ot e nat i onal u n if o rm ity in s e n te n c in g ra th e r t h a n u n if o rm ity a m o n g c o -d e f

e n d a n ts in th e s a m e c a s e .” ). F . R eas onabl enes s of t he s ent ence13

A p p e llan t re p e a ts h is p re v io u s a rg u m e n ts in c o n ten d in g th a t th e 1 4 0 -m o n th s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti s exce s s i vel yhar s h and di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se . T o d e ter m in e if

th e D istric t C o u rt a c ted re a so n a b lyin s ent enci ng appel l ant , w e mustfi r s tbe s at i s fi ed the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on by cons i der i ng t he r el evantfac t or s under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he r el evantfac t or s ar e: ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) t he nee d fort he s ent ence i m pos ed– ( A ) t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the off ens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect fort he l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe off ens e; (B ) to a f

f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur t hercr i m es of the def endant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def endantw i t h neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orot hercorr ect i onal tr ea tm en t i n the m o st eff ec ti v e m an n er; ( 3) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; (4 ) th e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a n d th e s e n te n c in g ra n g e e s ta b lis h e d f o r . . . th e a p p lica b le c a teg o ryo f o f f e n se c o m m itt e d b yth e a p p lica b le c a te g o ry o f

d e f e n d a n t a s s e t f

o rt h in th e g u id e lin e s . . . . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A l t hough t he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e the tr i al cour tgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , the courtneed notdi s cus s everyar gum entm ade by a lit ig a n t if a n a rg u m e n t is c lea rlyw ith o u t m e rit. C o o p e r, 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 . N o r m u st a co u rtm ak e f

ind ing s as to ea ch o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors if the rec o rd m ak es c lear the co u rt t ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. I d. M or eover , w hi l e w e r evi ew for r eas onabl enes s w hethera s ent ence l i es w i t hi n orout s i de the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange,14

it is “ le s s lik e ly th a t a w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e , w ill b e u n re a s o n a b le .” Id . a t 3 3 0 -3 1 . A t b o th th e o rig in a l se n ten c in g a n d o n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt th o ro u g h ly expl ai ned i t s r eas ons fort he s ent ence i ti m pos ed, and thos e r eas ons r efl ect ed the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s m eani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s s etfor t h i n § 3553( a) . A s the D i s t r i ct C our texpl ai ned att he conc l us i on of the r es ent enci ng hear i ng: T he C our tor i gi nal l ys ent ence d defe ndanton February9t h of 2004. T he s ent ence w i l l r emai n everyr es pectas i tw as on t hatdayot herthan the fa ct t hatt he C our ti s w i l l i ng t o appl ya one- l evel departur e t o 33 . . . Fr ankl y , the t ru e e s s e n c e o f

t h a ts e n t e n c e i s a r e f

l e c t i o n o f

th e s u b s t a n t i a l a mo u n to f t i me t hatM r . G ar ci a- M or ena s pentatthe Pas s ai c C ount yJ ai l i n t he H uds on Co u n t yf a c i l i ty . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f th a t , I wo u l d u n d o u b t a b l ys t a ywi t h my sen tenc e, be ca u se I think that, d esp it e the p rotestati o n s o f c o u n sel, M r. G ar ci a- M or ena w as i nvol ved i n an enorm ous amount of coc ai ne, w hi ch r equi r es a s ubs t ant i al s ent ence , w hi ch he r ece i ved, and I bel i eve that140 m ont hs i s an appr opr i at e s ent ence thatr efl ect s the s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e. A ccor di ngl y , w e s ee no ba s i s forconcl udi ng thatthe 140- m onth s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t–a s ent ence t hatw as atthe l ow erend of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange–w as unr eas onabl e. G . A l l eged i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l R ai s i ng t he i s s ue fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al , appel l antar gues thatcouns el di d not adequa t el yr epr es enthi m att he r emand hear i ng. W e gene r al l ydo notent ert ai n i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s fort he fi r s tt i m e on di r ectappea l . H eadl ey , 923 F. 2d at 1 0 8 3 . I n d e e d , we h a v e r e p e a t e d l yh e l d th a t“ t h e p r o p e ra v e n u e f o rp u r s u i n g s u c h c l a i ms i s t hr ough a col l at er al pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch the fa ctual bas i s forthe cl ai m m aybe15

d ev elop ed . ” Id . (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . T h eo d o rop o u los, 86 6 F . 2 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 8 (3d C ir . 1989) . A ppel l antdoes notcont end, nordo w e fi nd, thatthi s cas e fa l l s w i t hi n t he “na r r ow exce pt i on” t o t hi s gener al rul e. I d. ( s t at i ng that“[w ] her e the r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o al l ow det erm i nat i on of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o devel op t he fac t s i s notneede d”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e dec l i ne t o rul e on appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m thatcouns el fai l ed t o adequa t el yr epr es enthi m i n the pr ocee di ngs on r emand.

I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rt.