2003 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 11-19-2003 

# U SA v . B r own P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3455

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B r o wn " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 101. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/101NOT PRECEDENTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT Case Nos: 02-3455 and 02- 3479 UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. DARRYL L . B ROWN, Appellant

__________________ On Ap peal f

rom the U nited S tates D istrict Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Nos. 01- CR-00204-1 and 01-CR-00205-1) Distric t Judg e: Th e H ono rable M ary A. M cLa ugh lin

__________________ Su bm itted Pu rsua nt to LA R 3 4.1 November 4, 2003 Be for e: M cK EE , SM ITH , and W EIS , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: November 19, 2003)

_____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_____________ SM ITH , Circuit

Judge. De fend ant D arryl Bro wn plead ed gu ilty to four c oun ts of co nspira cy to com mit bank fraud, identi fy t

heft, and wire fraud, 27 counts of inters tate trans portation of st olen motor vehic les, seven counts of bank fraud, and four count s of fraudul ent use of aSocial1 Prior to sentencing, the Distri ct Court he ld an evi dentiaryhearing on Brown’s motion

to compel spe cifi c performance of hi s plea agreement. At t he conclusi on of the hearing, the Dist rict Court dete rmined that Brown’s st atements to the FBI were f alse, and that Brown had thereby breached the terms of his plea agreement. The D istri ct Court also determi ned that

Brown perjured hi mself during the evi dentiaryhearing by repeat ing the fals e sta tem ents that w ere m ade to th e FB I. 2 Securit y acc ount number. At sentencing, the Distri ct Court de termine d that Brown had obstruc ted jus tice by fal sely stating to age nts of t

he FederalBureau of Investigati on (“FBI”) t hat one of Brown’s co- defendants recei ved thousands of dollars in ki ckbacks from Bro wn durin g the c ourse of the cons piracy. B row n adm itted at se ntenc ing tha t his stat ements were materially fal se and that they signi ficant ly

obstruc ted or impeded the inves tigation and p rosec ution o f his co -defe ndan t. 1 Based on these f alse s tate ments, t

he Distri ct Court e nhanced Brown’s offense l evel by two level s for obst

ructi on of just ice under U.S.S. G. § 3C1.1, and r efused to a pply the three-le vel decr ease for ac ceptance of resp ons ibility un der U.S .S.G . § 3E 1.1. Bro wn appe als on ly the Distric t Cou rt’s den ial of th e acc eptan ce of respo nsibility red uctio n un der § 3E 1.1. T he D istrict Co urt h ad ju risdi ction pur sua nt to 18 U .S.C . § 323 1. W e ha ve a ppe llate ju risdi ction pur sua nt to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91 a nd 1 8 U .S.C . § 374 2(a ). Section 3E1.1of the Sentencing Gu idelines provides for a r eduction in offense level “ [i]f the defe ndan t clearly dem onstra tes acc eptan ce of respo nsibility for h is offe nse.” W hethe r a defenda nt clea rly demo nstrates acce ptanc e of re spon sibility is2 We exercise pl enary review over t

he District Court ’s interpret ation and legal app licatio ns o f the Sen tenc ing Gu ideli nes . United Stat es v. Fi gueroa , 105 F.3d 874, 875-76 (3d Cir. 199 7). 3 “es sen tially fa ctua l” an d is th erefore rev iew ed for c lear e rror o nly. Un ited Sta tes v. O rtiz , 878 F.2d 125 , 128 ( 3d C ir. 1989 ); see 18 U .S.C. § 374 2(e). 2 Clearl y demonst rating
acc epta nce of r esp ons ibility re qui res a gen uin e sh ow of c ont rition , United Stat es v. Muham mad , 146 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998), and t he defendant bears the burden of esta blish ing by a p rep ond eran ce o f the evid enc e tha t he is entit led to the r edu ction , United Statesv. Rodri

guez , 975 F.2d 999, 100 8 (3d C ir. 1992). Applicat ion Note 4 to § 3E1. 1 counsels : “Conduct r esulting in an e nhancement und er § 3 C1 .1 (O bstruc ting or I mp eding the A dm inistration of Ju stice) ord inarily indica tes that th e defenda nt has not ac cepte d resp onsib ility for his crim inal co ndu ct. Th ere m ay, ho we ver , be e xtra ord inar y case s in w hich adju stm ents und er b oth §§ 3 C1 .1 and 3E1.1 may apply. ” See also Stinson v. United Stat es , 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (commentary

to the gui deline s is binding unles s it violates the Constitution or a fe deral stat ute, or is inconsistent with t he guidel ine it

inter prets ). Appli cati on Note 4 recogni zes a “lo gica l inco nsis tenc y” be twe en o bstru ction of ju stice and acc epta nce of r esp ons ibility. United Stat

es v. Gonzales , 12 F .3d 29 8, 300 (1st C ir. 1993 ); see als o United Stat es v. Honken , 184 F.3d 961, 970 (8th Cir . 1999) ( “[W]hen the Commission r efers t o an ‘ex trao rdin ary ca se,’ it m ean s a sit uatio n th at is e xtre me ly rare a nd h igh ly exc eptio nal.” ).4

Before the Dis tri ct Court and on appeal, Brown argues that he trut hfully admitt ed his own crimina l conduct and enter ed a ti mely pl ea of guil ty prior to trial, in accor dance with A pplication N otes 1-3 of § 3E1 .1. Brow n argues th at his is one of the “extraordina ry
cases ” con temp lated b y App lication N ote 4, b ecau se his false state men ts con cern, n ot his
ow n co ndu ct, bu t the c ond uct o f a c o-d efe nda nt. Whether a given de fendant pr esents one of the “ext raordi nary

cases” warr anting adjust ment under both §§ 3E1.1 and 3C1.1 requires consi derati on of the t otality of the circumst ances, including t he nature of the defendant ’s obst ructive conduct and t

he degree of th e de fen dan t’s ac cep tanc e of resp ons ibility. See Honken , 184 F.3d at 968. That Bro wn’ s f

al se st at eme nt s c onc erne d the co ndu ct of a c o- de fe nda

ntrath er th an hi s o wn cond uct m ay, in certain cases , dimin ish the te nsion betw een § § 3C 1.1 an d 3E 1.1, bu t it is by no me ans disp ositiv e. At sentencing, the Distri ct Court reviewed Brown’s cooperation with l aw enforcement and explored at lengt h the rel ations hip between Brown’s obs tructive conduct and the offens e for which he was convi cted. The Distri ct Court ne verthel ess found that Brown’s case was not “ extraordinary or out of t

he ordinar

y” s o as to meri t a reduc tion for acceptanc e of respons ibil ity . “The sent encing j udge is i n a unique posi tion to evaluat e a defe ndan t’s acce ptanc e of re spon sibility.” U.S .S.G . § 3E 1.1 A pplica tion N ote 5. T his is no les s true w ith resp ect to w hethe r a defenda nt’s ob structive cond uct is inc onsiste nt w ith a genuine showing of

remorse or

whether the obstruc tion i s subst antia lly outweighed by5

oth er co ndu ct de mo nstra ting acc epta nce of r esp ons ibility. See also Unit ed States v. Singh , 923 F.2d 1039, 10 43-44 (3 d Cir. 199 1). In light of the natu re of B rown ’s obstruc tion and t

he principles underly ing Application Note 4 to § 3E1.1, we cannot say that t he D istrict Co urt’s find ing is cle arly err one ous . United States v. Bass , 54 F.3d 125, 128 (3d Cir. 1995 ) (District Court’s fac tual findings are c learly erroneous only if “w e are left w ith th e de finit e an d fir m c onv ictio n th at a m istak e ha s be en c om mitte d”)
. Ac cord ingly, we will affirm th e judg eme nt of th e D istrict Co urt.

______________________________________

By the C ourt, /s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge