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 6-19-2008 

# U SA v . C olb e r t 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 . 07-1764

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 authori 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 . C o lbe r t " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1002. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1002NOT 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- 1764 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TRO Y J . CO LBERT,

A ppel l ant

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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C ri m i nal A ct i on N o. 00 -cr -0000 3-1J) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 9, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed : J une 19, 2008

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T r o y J . C o l b e r tp l e d g u i l ty i n 2 0 0 0 t o tw o c o u n t s o f th e f ta n d o n e c o u n to f

b u r g l a ry, re c e iv in g a s e n te n c e o f

3 3 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t a n d th re e y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .2

A ft erhi s r el eas e fr om fede r al pr i s on, he expe r i ence d pr obl ems s t emm i ng fr om drug and al cohol abus e. I n 2006 he s erved t i m e i n the C ambri a C ounty , Penns y l vani a, pr i s on for th e s ta te -l a w c ri m e s o f

d is o rd e rl yc o n d u c t, p u b lic d ru n k e n n e s s , a n d c ri m in a l m is c h ie f. H e l at ers t i pul at ed t o s i x vi ol at i ons of the t erm s of hi s fede r al s upervi s ed r el eas e, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ( 2) fai l ur e t o part i ci pat e i n a drug tr eatm entpr ogr am, ( 3) fai l ur e t o r eportt o hi s pr obat i on offi cer , ( 4) comm i s s i on of anothers t at e cr i m i nal offe ns e, ( 5) fai l ur e t o not i fyhi s pr obat i on offi cerof hi s arr es t , and ( 6) fai l ur e t o payr es t i tut i on. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof P enn sy l van i a ado pted a M agis trat e Judg e’s reportand recom m end at i on con cerni ng t hese v io latio n s a n d im p o se d a se n ten c e o f 1 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. C o lb e rt n o w a p p e a ls h is s e n t e n c e , a n d we a f

f i r m. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew a s ent ence i m pos ed upon a re v o c a tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1

– 6 2 (20 0 5 )). B eca us e C ol bert ’ s vi ol at i ons of s t at e l aw w er e puni s habl e bya pr i s on t erm of one y earor les s, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t C o lb e rt h a d c o m m itt e d a G ra d e C v io latio n o f h is su p erv ised release u n d er U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1 . 1 (a)(3). G iven C o lbert’s cri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof V I , thi s y i el ded a f eder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 8 t o 14 m onths at step o n e o f o u r sen tenc ing fra m ew o rk u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). B ut the D i stri ctC ou rtal so fou nd that C olber t ’s supervi sed-r el ease3

vi ol at i ons w er e “a s s oci at ed w i th a hi gh r i s k of new fel oni ous conduct , ” meani ng that“an u p w a rd d e p a rt u re [ in th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e ] m a yb e w a rr a n te d .” U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .4 , ap p l. n. 3 . A s a re su lt, it i m p o se d

— a t G unt er ’ s s t ep tw o— an upw ar d departur e of fourm onths fr om the t op of the G ui del i nes r ange, ul t i m at el yr es ul t i ng i n a fi nal s ent ence o f 1 8 m o n th s . S e e g e n e ra lly 462 F. 3d at247 ( des cr i bi ng s t ep tw o of the s ent enci ng p roc ess). O n appea l , C ol bertar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , he ci t es t he exampl e gi ven i n t he appl i cat i on not e on w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed, w hi ch s t at es t hat “a de fenda nt , unders upervi s i on forconvi ct i on of cr i m i nal s exual abus e, vi ol at es t he condi t i on thathe notas s oci at e w i th chi l dr en byl oi t er i ng neara s chool y ar d. ” I d. He cont ends thathi s behavi oron s upervi s ed r el eas e does notfi tthi s exampl e bec aus e he n e ith e r v io late d a n “ u n u su a l” c o n d iti o n sp e c if ic to h is re lea se n o r su g g e ste d th a t h e w o u ld a g a in e n g a g e in th e sp e c if ic o f f e n se s o f b u rg lar ya n d th e f

t (f o r w h ich h e re c e iv e d h is i ni t i al fede r al s ent ence i n 2000) . T hi s ar gum entfai l s beca us e the appl i cat i on not e does n o t li m it i ts re a c h to v io latio n s o f “ u n u su a l” c o n d iti o n s o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . Its e x a m p le is m ea n t on lyto b e su g g esti v e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtrea so n ab lyfo u n d that C o lbert’s failure t o compl et e a r equi r ed drug r ehabi l i t at i on pr ogr am i n 2006 demonstr at es a hi gh l i kel i hood o f r e c i d i v i s m. Second, C ol bertar gues thathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the s ent enci ng fac t or s l i s t ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H i s m ai n cont ent i on i n thi s r egar d i s thatthe4

D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to g iv e h im c re d it fo r p a rtial s a tisf a c tio n o f so m e o f th e ter m s o f

h is s upervi s ed r el eas e. Fori ns t ance , he compl et ed a 14- dayi npat i entdrug tr eatm entpr ogr am befor e fa i l i ng t o compl et e a s ubs equent , m or e i nt ens i ve pr ogr am. H e al s o pai d s om e, though notal l , of the r es t i tut i on he ow ed. T he M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eport , w hi ch the D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted , d o e s m e n tio n so m e o f th e se p o ten tiallym iti g a tin g f a c to rs. B u t it al s o di s cus s ed the natur e of Col bert ’ s vi ol at i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, s ee i d. § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 1 ); th e n e e d f o r h is s e n te n c e to s e rv e th e v a ri o u s g o a ls o f c ri m in a l la w , s ee i d. § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ); th e s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le , s e e id . § 3553( a) ( 3) ; and the fe der al Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s ra n g e , s e e id . § 3553( a) ( 4) . T hus , the r eportaddr es s ed the “r el evant [§ 3553( a) ] fac t or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); see al so i d. (a d istri ct co u rtn ee d n o t l istev ery§ 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctor “ if th e re co rd m ak es c lear the co u rt

too k the f

ac tors into a cc o u n t i n sen tenc ing ”). W e th u s h o ld th a t C o lb e rt’s s e n ten c e , ref lec tin g a f

o u r-m o n th u p w a rd d e p a rtu re in cal cul at i ng the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange thats erves as an advi s oryfac t orforthe

a c tu a l s e n t e n c e , wa s r e a s o n a b l e i n th i s c o n t e x ta n d th u s a f f i r m.