2010 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 7-2-2010 

# U SA v . J o se P e re 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 . 09-2235

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_2010

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 2010 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 . J os e P e r ez " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1039. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1039NOT 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. 09- 2235

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSE O CTA VI O PEREZ, 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 1- 08- cr - 00593- 001 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. N oel L . H i l l m an
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J ul y2, 2010)

OP I NI ONT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over Per ez’ s chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antJ os e O ct avi o Per ez ( “Per ez” ) pl ed gui l t yt o i l l egal pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e appe al s t he Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s i mp o s i t i o n o f a f o u r - l e v e l s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n tp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 K2 . 1 ( b ) ( 6 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I . I n J anuary2008, pol i ce of fi cer s i n C amden, N ew J er s ey , obs erved a gr oup of y oung m en s t andi ng on t he cornerof tw o acc es s r oads i ns i de an a par t m entcompl ex l ocat ed i n a dange r ous , hi gh cr i m e, and hi gh drug t r aff i cki ng ar ea. T he off

i cer s s aw one of the men, Per ez, di s pl aya handgun a nd t hen pl ace i ti nt o hi s w ai s tband upon s eei ng t he pol i ce. Per ez be gan runni ng aw ayfr om t he off i cer s w hi l e the otherm en qui ckl yw al ked a w a yf ro m th e a re a . D u rin g a f o o t p u rsu it, tw o p o lice o f f ice rs s a w P e re z re a c h in to h is pant s pocketand di s car d an unknow n obj ect . O ne of the off i cer s des cr i bed the obj ectas t he “s i ze of

a dec k of pl ay i ng car ds , ” A pp. at82, w hi l e the otheroffi cerdes cr i bed i tas “a s m a ll p la s tic b a g , lik e [ a ] s a n d w ic h b a g ” th a t w a s “ [ s ]m a lle r t h a n a f is t,” A p p . a t 1 2 2 . T he ar ea w her e Per ez dr opped the obj ectw as bl ocked byt r aff i c barr i cade s and w as not accessi ble t o v ehicl es. Per ez c ont i nued runni ng and w as eventual l yt ackl ed t o t he gr ound. T he handgun3

f e ll f ro m P e re z ’s w a is tb a n d a n d “ tu m b le d o n to th e c o n c re te ,” w h e re it w a s re c o v e re d . A pp. at70. T he off

i cer s t hen r etr ace d t he path of thei rfootchas e i n an att empt t o r ecove r t he obj ectt hatPer ez ha d di s car ded. W i t hi n m i nut es of r etur ni ng t o t he s potw her e they s aw Per ez di s car d t he obj ect , t he off i cer s r ecove r ed a pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng for t ys eal ed bags of cr ack c ocai ne. St at e cha r ges agai ns tPer ez w er e di s m i s s ed i n favorof fe der al pr os ecut i on, and P e r e z w a s i n d i c t e d a n d p l e d g u i l t y t o o n e c o u n to f i l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . I n t he pl ea a gr eement , t he G o v e rn m e n t r e s e rv e d th e ri g h t to s e e k a f o u r- le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) , w hi ch appl i es w hen “the def endantus ed orpos s es s ed anyfi r earm or amm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i t h anotherfel onyoffe ns e. ” The G overnm entar gued thatt he e n h a n c e m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se “ P e re z w a s in p o ss e ss io n o f – a n d a ttem p ted to di s car d dur i ng a footchas e w i t h l aw enfor cementauthor i t i es – for t y( 40) heat - s eal ed bags of a s ubs t ance t hatfi el d- t es t ed pos i t i ve forcoca i ne . . . . ” A pp. at20 ¶ 4. T he part i es agr eed thati f the D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the enha ncement , t he t ot al offe ns e l evel w oul d be 27, and i f i tdi d not , t he t ot al offe ns e l evel w oul d be 23. T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) s t at ed thata four - l evel enhanc ementw as notw arr ant ed under§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) and ca l cul at ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 23. I n r ecomm endi ng agai ns tt he enha ncement , t he PSR not ed thatan off i cerr epor t ed

“ lo w ill u m in a tio n ” d u rin g th e f o o t ch a se , su c h th a t h e w a s “ u n a b le to se e w h a t th e sm a ll4

i t e m [ was ] t h a tPe r e z t h r e w t o t h e g r o u n d , ” PS R ¶ 1 6 , a n d f u r t h e rn o t e d t h a tTe r r e l l L. A l l en ( “A l l en”) , an ac quai nt ance of Per ez, s i gned a s w or n aff i davi ts t at i ng t he fol l ow i ng: O n t he dat e [that ] J os e O . Per ez w as arr es t ed fordrugs and a f i r earm [, ] t he drugs t hatw er e found w [er e] m i ne. W hen s t at e pol i ce c has ed J os e he r an b ym e a n d I th re w m yd ru g [ s] u p in th e a ir try in g to ro o f th e m b u t th e yf

e ll dow n and hi tt he gr ound and I r an. A ft ert heycaughtJ os e theyr etr ace d t he[i r ] s t eps and found mydrugs and putt hem on Jos e. I am w r i t i ng t hi s of m yow n free w i l l , no on e i s m aking or t hreat ening m e t o d o thi s. A pp. at222. T he G overnm entobj ect ed t o t he PSR ’ s r ecomm endat i on and, i n s uppor tof t he s ent enci ng enhanc ement , s t at ed i t s i nt ent i on t o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatPer ez pos s es s ed and a t t empt ed t o di s car d t he coc ai ne. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a tw o- dayevi dent i aryhear i ng dur i ng w hi ch the G overnm enti nt r oduced the t es t i m onyof the pol i ce of fi cer s and of A l l en, t he af fi ant , as w ell as d o cu m en taryev iden ce inclu d ing g rou n d an d ae ri al ph o tog rap h s o f th e a rea w h ere th e f o o t p u rsu it t o o k p lac e . T h e p o lice o f f ice rs te stif

ied to th e f

a c ts a s p re v io u sly des cr i bed. A l l en t es t i fi ed t o t he s ubs t ance of hi s aff i davi tand mar ked an a er i al p h o to g ra p h to sh o w w h e re h e w a s s tan d in g w h e n h e “ ro o f e d ” h is d ru g s, i.e., trie d to th ro w th e m o n th e ro o f

o f a n a d jac e n t b u ild in g . H e tes tifie d th a t as h e d id so , a v e h icle

“ ro lle d ri g h t b y .” A p p . a t 1 4 3 . A c c o rd in g to A lle n , th e d ru g s h it “ th e tip o f th e ro o f ,” A p p . a t 1 4 6 , a n d f

e ll “ [ a ]n yw h e re f

ro m f iv e to [ te n ] f

e e t” f ro m th e b u ild in g , A p p . a t 1 4 7 . H e t es t i fi ed thatt he bui l di ng ont o w hi ch he tr i ed t o “r oof” hi s drugs di d notappea ri n a phot ogr aph of the ar ea w her e the off i cer s s ai d t heyr ecove r ed the coc ai ne. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d “notfi nd t he t es t i m onyof M r . A l l en t o underm i ne that[of5

t he pol i ce of

fi cer s ] , ” A pp. at174, and found thatA l l en “pr obabl ydi d have s om e drugs w i t h hi m , pr obabl ydi d s eek t o r oof them, and pr obabl yhones t l ybel i eves t hatt he drugs t hatw er e found w er e hi s , ” A pp. at175. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, how ever , t hat A l l en “pl ace [d] t he l ocat i on of [hi s ] drugs . . . atl eas ta bl ock aw ay ” fr om w her e the o ff icers testi fied theyrec o v ere d the b ag o f c o ca ine. A p p . at 17 5 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt found “no w aythatM r . A l l en w as t he s our ce” of the r ecove r ed drugs beca us e “[ A l l en] w oul d have ha d t o have hur l ed them per haps [fi fty ] t o [s eventy - fi ve] y ar ds , notcons i s t ent w i t h hi s ow n t es t i m onyaboutat t empt i ng t o r oof them. ” A pp. at176. I n addi t i on, t he C our tnot ed thata vehi cl e “c oul d nothave dr i ven pas thi m i f he w as s t andi ng nextt o t he bui l di ng w her e [the off i cer s ] s a[i d] t hey[found] t he drugs . ” A pp. at175. T he C our tcr edi t ed the pol i ce of fi cer s ’ t es t i m ony , fi ndi ng “nothi ng i n t he rec o rd a n d n o thing in [ the p o li ce o ff icers’] de m ea n o r . . . to su g g est th at [the y ] w ere tes tify in g u n tru th f

u lly. . . . ” A p p . at 1 7 6 . H a v in g f o u n d th a t th e c o c a in e b e lo n g e d to Per ez, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the s ent enci ng enhanc ementi n U . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) a n d se n ten c e d P e re z to 9 6 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, be lo w th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 1 0 0 to 12 0 m on t hs. II. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand r evi ew de novo a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . U nited S tates v. N

ava rro , 476 F . 3d 18 8, 19 1 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). “A fi nd i ng i s ‘ cl earl yerr on eou s’6

w h en [,] alth o u g h there is ev iden ce to su p p o rtit , the re v iew ing [b o d y ] on the e n ti re evi dence i s l eftw i th t he def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 570 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on o m itted). III . P e re z “ d o e s n o t d isp u te” th a t if th e c o c a in e re c o v e re d b yth e o f f ice rs “ b e lo n g e d to hi m , t he § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) enhanc ementw oul d appl y . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at17. Per ez a r gues in s te a d th a t th e e v id e n c e “ d id n o t a f f ir m a tiv e ly es ta b lis h th a t th e d ru g s re c o v e re d . . . bel onged t o hi m . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at15. H e s ubm i t s t hatt he drugs “coul d have be en di s car ded byanynum berof i ndi vi dual s ” s uch as A l l en or“anynum berof otherpeopl e” i n t he apa r t m entcompl ex. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at22. Per ez a l s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s credi bil i t ydeterm i nati on s. T h e e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e c o c a in e b e lo n g e d to Per ez a nd t hus s uppor t s i m pos i t i on of the § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) enhanc ement . Fi r s t , t her e w as evi dence t hatt he coc ai ne di d notbel ong t o A l l en. A l t hough A l l en thoughtt he coc ai ne w as hi s , A l l en des cr i bed hi s l ocat i on at“the nexts t r eetover ” fr om w her e the off i cer s had o b se rv e d P e re z d isc a rd th e o b jec t. A p p . at 1 4 6 . A llen tes tifie d th a t th e b u ild in g o n to w hi ch he tr i ed t o “r oof” hi s drugs di d notappea ri n a phot ogr aph of the ar ea w her e the offi cer s chas ed Per ez a nd r ecove r ed the coc ai ne. H i s des cr i pt i on of a ve hi cl e “r ol l [i ng] r i g h tb y, ” A p p . a t1 4 3 , i s c o n s i s t e n tw i t h h i s p r e s e n c e a b l o c k a w a y.7

Second, t her e w as evi dence t hatt he coc ai ne i n fac tbel onged t o Per ez. T he offi cer s t es t i fi ed thatt heys aw Per ez di s car d an obj ectm at chi ng t he des cr i pt i on of the coca i ne dur i ng t hei rpur s ui t . W hen theyr etr ace d t hei rs t eps aft erappr ehendi ng Per ez, t heyrecovered t he co cai ne w i t hin m i nu t es. T he D i stri ctC ou rtcredi t ed the officer s’ te s tim o n y , a n d s o m u s t w e . See U n itedS ta tes v . Ko le , 164 F. 3d 164, 177 ( 3d C i r . 1998) (“ C re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s a re th e u n iq u e p ro v in c e o f a f a c t f in d e r . . . .”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B etha nco urt , 65 F. 3d 1074, 1078 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “[W ] e w i l l notr evi ew a di s t r i ct c o u rt’s c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n .”) ( c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e a re n o t lef t “w ith th e d e f

in ite and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed, ” G r i er , 475 F. 3d at570 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) , and conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he coc ai ne bel onged t o Per ez w as notcl ear l yerr oneous . T he appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng enhanc ementi n § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) w as t her efor e appr opr i at e. I V. Fort he above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence .