2011 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 7-15-2011 

# U SA v . S mith 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 . 08-1381

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_2011

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 2011 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 mith" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P ape r 872. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/872NOT 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. 08- 1381 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T OP HE R S M I T H,

a/k/ a J UGHE AD C hr i s t opherSm i t h, 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 D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 02- cr - 00172- 026 (H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember1, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , S T A P L E T O N and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y15, 2011)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge .2

C h ri stop h er S m ith ap p ea ls his sen tenc e im p o sed o n rem an d u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . In 2 0 0 2 , a g ra n d ju ryin th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia in d icte d th irty -six d ef en d an ts w ith co n sp ir ac yto d istri b u te m o re tha n fiv e k il o g ram s o f c o ca ine a n d m o re t han fi ftygr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) . D efe ndantC hr i s t opherSm i th w as partof the C our t neyC ar t eror gani zat i on, cons i s t i ng of m anym ember s w ho di s t r i but ed contr ol l ed s u b s ta n c e s , in c lu d in g c o c a in e a n d c ra c k , in P e n n s y lv a n ia , D e la w a re , a n d o th e r l o c a tio n s . B etw een 1997 a nd 2002, t he cons pi r acydi s t r i but ed more than 600 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne a n d m o re th a n 4 0 0 k ilo g ra m s o f c ra c k w ith g ro s s re v e n u e s th a t e x c e e d e d $ 2 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e d ru g c o n s p ir a c yo c c a s io n e d n u m e ro u s a c ts o f v io le n c e in c lu d in g a m u rd e r. S m ith w as a “h u stl er” w o rkin g v ariou s str ee t corn ers a n d also a “ g u n ” o r en fo rce r, pr ot ect i ng t he corner s fr om r i val drug or gani zat i ons . T her e w er e s ever al vi ol entact s and i n 1999- 2000 co- cons pi r at or s , i ncl udi ng Sm i t h, engage d i n a tur f w arw i t h anotherdrug o r g a n i z a t i o n k n o wn a s “ Z i p Wo r l d ” o r“ Z i p n i c k s . ” On a tl e a s tth r e e o c c a s i o n s , th e two gangs excha nged gunfi r e. I n J anuary2000, Sm i t h and a c o- cons pi r at ors hotand ki l l ed G r ay l i ng C r ai g, a mem berof the r i val or gani zat i on. I n February2000, Sm i t h and cocons pi r at or s excha nged gunfi r e w i t h t he r i val gang and a by s t anderw as w ounded. O n Ja n u a ry3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , a ju ryc o n v icte d C h risto p h e r S m ith o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te cocaine and cocaine base, i n v i olat i on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 46 and § 8 41 (a) (1) , and of the useT h e P S R d e te rm in e d S m ith w a s re s p o n s ib le f o r d is tr ib u tio n o f

m o re th a n 1 .5 1 ki l ogr ams of pow dercoca i ne and mor e than 150 ki l ogr ams of cr ack. T he gui del i nes speci fyt hese qu anti t i es have t he m ari j uan a equ i valentof 6 0, 00 0 k i l og ram s. Ital so d e te rm in e d th a t th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l f

o r a c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te c o c a in e w a s 3 8 . B a se d o n a n o f

f e n se lev e l o f

3 8 a n d a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f III, f o r C o u n t O n e , it det erm i ned thatt he gui del i ne r ange w as 292 t o 365 m ont h i n pr i s on. T he maxi m um st atutoryt erm of im pri sonm ent w as l i fe w i t h a m and at orym i nim um of ten y ears . A n offe ns e l evel of m or e than 43 i s tr eat ed as an off ens e l evel of 43 underthe 2 g u id e lin e s . 3 o f a f ir e a rm d u ri n g th e c o m m is s io n o f a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c ri m e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c). T h e jury , thro u g h sp ec ial interrog atories, fo u n d S m ith an d h is co -co n sp ir ators r es pons i bl e fordi s t r i but i on of m or e than fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and f i ftygr ams of coca i ne bas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the P r es ent ence I nves t igat i on R epor t

, A ddenda a n d U p da te w h ich d esig n ated a b ase o ff en se lev el of

3 8 u n d er § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(1). U n d er § 1 2D . 1( d) ( 1) and i n vi ew of the fa ctt hatG r ay l i ng C r ai g w as ki l l ed underci r cumst ance s t hat w oul d cons t i tut e murde runder18 U . S. C . § 111, the courtfound § 2A 1. 1 appl i ed, r ai s i ng t he bas e off

ens e l evel t o 43. I n addi t i on, the courtfound ther e w as evi dence attr i al of Sm i t h’ s r epea t ed att empt s t o obs t ructj us t i ce byi nt i m i dat i ng the governm ent ’ s cooper at i ng w itn esse s. C o n seq u en tl y , the c o u rtraised the b ase o ff en se lev el tw o p o ints t o 4 5 u n d er § 2 3 C 1 .1 . S m ith ’s to tal o f f e n se lev e l o f

4 5 a n d h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f III re su lted in a gui del i ne s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he courti m pos ed a l i fe s ent ence on C ount O ne and a n addi t i onal t hi r t yy ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entcons ecut i ve t o t he s ent ence on C ount O n e (a fiv e-y ea r m an d atoryco n sec u ti v e se n tenc e o n C o u n t 11 9 , an d a 2 5 -y ea r m an d atory c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e o n C o u n t 1 2 1 ). S m ith a p p e a le d h is s e n te n c e .4

W e af fi r m ed hi s convi ct i ons on al l thr ee c ount s and af fi r m ed the s ent ence s i m pos ed o n C o u n ts 11 9 an d 1 2 1 (m an d atoryco n sec u ti v e term s o f f ive y ea rs an d tw en ty -five y ea rs r es pect i vel y ) . W e vac at ed the l i fe s ent ence on C ountO ne and r emanded forr es ent enci ng undert he advi s or ygui del i nes s etfor t h i n B ooker . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 252 Fed. A p p ’x 4 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). O n rem an d , the D istri ct C o u rtac k n o w ledg ed ith ad the d iscreti o n to v ary d o w n w ard s u n d er B ookerbutchos e nott o do s o. T he court , not i ng the off ens es ati s s ue i nv olved a m urder and thr eat s t o g ov ernm ent w i t nesses, fou nd S m i t h w as a “dan gerous, r emors el es s offe nder . ” A ddi t i onal l y , the court“cr edi t ed” tw o i nt erveni ng m ur der convi ct i ons , r es ul t i ng i n a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I . T he courtagai n s ent ence d S m ith to lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t o n C o u n t O n e . II. Sm i t h cont ends t he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed hi s D ue Pr oces s and Si xth A m endment r i ght s w hen i tdet erm i ned bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence : a) thathe comm i t t ed m ur der ; b) t hathe obs t ruct ed j us t i ce; and c) the s peci fi c amountof drugs i nvol ved i n the c r i m e . S m i t h a r g u e s t h i s w a s b o t h a tr i a l e r r o r , a s th e f a c t s w e r e n o ts u b m i t t e d t o th e j u r y, and a s ent enci ng err or , as t he tr i al cour tcal cul at ed Sm i t h’ s s ent ence underthe gui del i nes u s in g f a c ts n o t f o u n d b yth e ju ry. I n B o o ke r, t he Supr eme C our tr ender ed the s ent enci ng gui del i nes advi s ory . 543 U . S. at259- 60. P o st- B ooker , a tr i al j udge has di s cr et i on t o s ent ence i n l i ghtof the5

sta tu to rym a x im u m a n d sta tu to rym in im u m p ro v isio n s a n d th e se n ten c in g f a c to rs liste d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See U nited S tates v. G ri er, 475 F. 3d 556, 567- 68, 571 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( en banc ) . T he fa i l ur e t o s ubm i tt he di s put ed fa ct s t o t he j uryw as noterr or . W e r evi ew ed a s i m i l arques t i on en banc i n G r i er . T he ques t i on i n G r i erw as w hetherthe D ue P rocess C l aus e r equi r ed a j ur y( orj udge ata benc h t r i al ) t o det erm i ne bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt fac t s r el evantt o s ent enci ng gui del i nes enhanc ement s , part i cul ar l ythos e cons t i tut i ng a s e p a ra te o f

f e n s e . Id . at561. J udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng i n appl y i ng advi s orys ent enci ng gui del i nes does notconfl i ctw i t h t he def endant ’ s r i ghtt o a j urytr i al and the r equi r ementof pr oof bey ond r eas onabl e doubtunderthe Fi fth and Si xth A m endments o l ong as he has b e e n c o n v icte d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t o f th e p re d ica te f

a c ts o f u n law f u l co n d u c t, “tr i gger i ng a s t atut or ym axi m um penal t y . ” Id . a t 5 6 2 . T h e g u id e lin e s (a n d p o ss ib le e n h a n c e m e n ts) d o n o t in c re a se th e m a x im u m p u n ish m e n t to w h ich th e d e f e n d a n t is expos ed, butr atheri nform t he j udge’ s di s cr et i on as t o t he pr opers ent ence w i t hi n t he sta tu to rym in im u m a n d sta tu to rym a x im u m se n ten c e s. A c c o rd in g ly , fa c ts re lev a n t to a p p lica tio n o f

th e g u id e lin e s a re n o t ele m e n ts o f a c rim e a n d d o n o t trigg e r th e rig h ts r ecogni zed i n Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) . G r i er , 475 F. 3d at567. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterrbys ent enci ng Sm i t h t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . U nder21 U . S. C . § 841, t he s t atut or ym axi m um s ent ence t o w hi ch a de fenda nti s expos ed i s l i fe w h e n th e o f

f e n s e in v o lv e s m o re th a n f iv e k ilo g ra m s o f

p o w d e r c o c a in e . 2 1 U .S .C . §A t re se n ten c in g , S m ith ’s c o u n se l re sp o n d e d to th e D istric t C o u rt’s in q u irya b o u t th is 3 change i n hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , “no pr obl ems, y ourH onor , as t o t he convi ct i ons . ” 6 84 1(b)( 1)( A ). T he juryfou nd S m i t h v i olat ed 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 46 and that the o ffen se i nvol ved more t han fi ve ki l ogr ams of pow dercoca i ne and mor e than fi ftygr ams of co ca ine b ase . T h e D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed a se n tenc e e q u ivalen t t o the m ax im u m statu tory penal t yauthor i zed byt he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . T he courtdi d notvi ol at e Sm i t h’ s D ue Pr oces s and Si x A m endmentr i ght s att r i al w hen fa ct s r el evantt o appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s w e re n o t s u b m itte d to th e ju ry. Sm i t h s i m i l ar l yar gues t hatus e of f act s notfound bythe j uryats ent enci ng w as err or . B eca us e the j ur ydi d notneed t o m ake s peci fi c fi ndi ngs on t hes e fa ct s t o s ubj ect hi m t o a maxi m um penal t yof l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , the tr i al cour tw as perm i t t ed t o fi nd s uch fac t s ats ent enci ng. III . Sm i t h al s o cont ends t he courterr ed byi ncr eas i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryfr om III to V I a t re se n ten c in g a s a re su lt o f tw o in ter v e n in g m u rd e r c o n v ictio n s. W e g e n e ra lly re v ie w s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . B utas Sm i t h di d notobj ect , w e r evi ew forpl ai n err orunderFed. R . C r i m . P. 52 3 (b ). S e e U

n ite d S ta te s v . O la n o , 507 U . S. 725, 732 ( 1993) . T o fi nd pl ai n err or , ther e 1) m us tbe an e r r or , 2) t he err orm us tbe “pl ai n” ( a t erm s ynonym ous w i t h “cl ear ” orT he G uidel i nes app l i cat i on no t es define “Pri or sent encing” as: 4 a s ent ence i m pos ed pr i ort o sen tenc ing on the i ns t antoffe ns e, ot herthan a sen tenc e forconductt hati s partof the i ns t antoffe ns e. A s ent ence i m pos ed a f ter th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e in sta n t o f

f e n c e , b u t p rio r to s ent enci ng on t he i ns t ance o ff en ce , i s a pr i ors ent ence i f i tw as forconduct ot hert han conduc tt hatw as par tof the i ns t antoffe ns e. U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 c m t. n .1 . 7 “obvi ous ”) , and 3) the err or m ust“affect s ub st anti al ri gh t s” ( m eaning t hat the err or m ust b e p re ju d ic ia l, a f

f e c tin g th e o u tc o m e o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s ). I d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcomm i terr or , l etal one pl ai n err or , w hen i ti ncr eas ed Sm i t h’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryfr om I I I t o V I . T he courtcorr ect l yappl i ed the sen tenc ing g u idelines an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). U n d er U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 2 (a)(1), Sm ith ’s a d d i t i o n a l h o m i c i d e c o n v i c t i o n s a d d e d p o i n t s t o r a i s e h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y. 4 C ongr es s has di r ect ed “[ n] o l i m i t at i on s hal l be pl ace d on the i nform at i on conce r ni ng t he backgr ound, char act er , and conduc tof a pe r s on convi ct ed of a n offe ns e w hi ch a c our tof th e U n ited S tate s m a yre c e iv e a n d c o n sid e r f o r th e p u rp o se o f

im p o sin g a n a p p ro p ria te s ent ence . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3661. W hen cons i der i ng w hethera def endant ’ s pos t - convi ct i on r ehabi l i t at i on s houl d be cons i der ed atr es ent enci ng, the Supr eme C our tr ece nt l ynot ed the “pl ai n l anguage of § 3661 m akes no di s t i nct i on betw een a defe ndant ' s i ni t i al s ent enci ng and a s ubs equentr es ent enci ng aft era pr i ors ent ence has been s etas i de on appe al . ” P epper v. U ni t ed Stat es , - - - U . S. - - - - , 131 S. C t . 1229, 1241 ( 2011) . I n P epp er, the C our thel d t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as notbound bya pr i orcal cul at i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes w hen8

i m pos i ng a new s ent ence de novo fol l ow i ng a B oo ker re m a n d . I d. at1250. W e fi nd no err or , l etal one pl ai n err or , w hen on r emand t he courtappl i ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) (re q u irin g c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s h isto rya n d a p p lica b le s ent enci ng gui del i nes , among ot herfac t or s ) byt aki ng i nt o acc ountthe i nt erveni ng co n v ict ion s fo r m u rde r. I V. F i nall y , S m i t h all eges a v i olat i on of the C ruel and U nu sual P un i shm ent C l ause b e c a u se th e se n ten c e w a s n o t re a so n a b le. W e re v iew th e re a so n a b len e ss o f a se n ten c e in lig h t o f th e s e n te n c in g f

a c to rs a rt ic u la te d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U n ite d S ta te s v . K in g, 454 F. 3d 1 8 7 , 1 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O u r rev iew u n d er the E igh t A m en d m en t i s g u ided b yfa ctors s uch as t he s er i ous nes s of the off ens e and ha r s hnes s of the pena l t yi n l i ghtof s ent ence s i nand out s i de of the j ur i s di ct i on, w i t h pr i m aryemphasi s on r el at i ons hi p betw een the s e ri o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e a n d h a rs h n e s s o f

th e p e n a lty. U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 473 F. 3d 7 1 , 8 1 -82 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e r ej ectSm i t h’ s cont ent i on t hatthe s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entfor par t i ci pat i ng i n a mass i ve drug cons pi r acyi nvol vi ng the murde rof a r i val drug deal erand the s h o o ti n g o f a n inn o ce n t by stan d er is cru el an d u n u su al or u n rea so n ab le. T h e c o u rt too k into a cc o u n t th e se ri o u sn ess o f th e c ri m e, po tential ran g e o f p en alt ies, an d S m ith ’s per s onal char act er i s t i cs i ncl udi ng hi s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t oryand hi s part i ci pat i on i n at9

l eas tt hr ee mur der s . W e s ee no pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve err ori n t he s ent ence . T he s ent ence w as r eas onabl e.

V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .