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 1-5-2007 

# U SA v . Les te r 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 . 06-1265

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 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 . L e s t e r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1809. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1809T he H onor abl e R onal d L . B uckw al t er , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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. 06- 1265

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. C H R IS T IE L E S T E R , 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 05- cr - 0052- 3) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber12, 2006 B e f o re : F IS H E R , an d C H A G A R E S , C irc u it Judg es, and B U C K W A L T E R , D i s tr i ctJ udge. *

____________ ( Fi l ed: J anuary5, 2007)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. C h ri s tie L e s te r p le a d e d g u ilty to m is p ri s io n o f a f e lo n yin v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 4 and w as s ent ence d bya j udgm entdat ed J anuary12, 2006. She appea l s hers ent ence , a rg u in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r b yf a ili n g to d e m o n stra te cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de an adeq uate explanat i on for i m po si ng her sent ence. W e agree and w e w i l l rem and the case f o r r e -s e n te n c in g . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w e w i l l keep the fa ct s br i ef. O n the ni ghtof N ovember1, 2004, a conf i dent i al i nform anttw i ce pur chas ed drugs fr om K eena n D r ayt on, L ester’s b o y frien d . In c o n n ec ti o n w ith the s ec o n d p u rch ase , law en fo rce m en t of fice rs o b s e rv e d D ra yto n a n d a n o th e r m a n e x it f ro m a h o te l r o o m re g is te re d in L e s te r’ s n a m e . W h e n th e o f

f ic e rs w e n t to th e ro o m , th e yf o u n d L e s te r a n d h e r t w o c h ild re n in s id e . L es t ercons ent ed t o t he off i cer s ’ r eques tt o s ear ch the r oom and the off i cer s s ei zed a p p ro x im a te ly 2 9 0 g ra m s o f c ra c k c o c a in e . O n Sept ember23, 2005, L es t erpl eade d gui l tyt o m i s pr i s i on of a f el onyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 4, w hi ch pr ovi des “[w ] hoever , havi ng know l edge of the ac tual comm i s s i on of a f

el onycogni zabl e bya courtof the U ni t ed St at es , conce al s and does not as s oon as pos s i bl e make know n t he s ame t o s om e j udge orotherper s on i n ci vi l or m i l i t aryauthor i tyunderthe U ni t ed St at es , s hal l be fi ned underthi s t i t l e ori m pr i s oned not3

m or e than thr ee y ear s , orboth. ” I n pl eadi ng gui l ty , L es t eradmi t t ed s he knew D r ayt on w as i n pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e. T he pr obat i on offi cer cal cul at ed Lest er ’ s bas e off ens e l evel as 19, and adj us t ed thatnum berdow n bythr ee le v e ls b e c a u s e L e s te r h a d a c c e p te d re s p o n s ib ility a s d e s c ri b e d in U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 . A total of fe n se lev el of

1 6 , w h en co m b ined w ith L ester’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f III, r es ul t s i n a s ent enci ng r ange of 27 t o 33 m onths . B eca us e Lest erpr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n t he i nves t i gat i on of D r ayt on, the governm entr eques t ed an a ddi t i onal onel evel r edu ct i on , res ult i ng i n a rang e of 2 4 to 30 m on ths. A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , L ester as k ed the D istri ct C o u rtto co n side r th e n ature and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e and Les t er ’ s hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs pur s uantt o 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1) . L est er pr esent ed ev i den ce t hat s he w as neglect ed an d ab used as a chi l d, and had be en i n an abus i ve r el at i ons hi p as an adul t . She al s o poi nt ed outthatno evi dence s how ed s he w as i nvol ved i n the comm i s s i on of the under l y i ng fel ony( i . e. , s he di d notengage i n t he drug tr aff i cki ng) and thatno evi dence i ndi cat ed s he knew the amount of cr ack c ocai ne herboy fr i end br oughti nt o herhot el r oom . Fi nal l y , s he ar gued thatthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ 100: 1 r at i o forcr ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne di d not a c c u r a t e l y r e f

l e c th e rc u l p a b i l i ty. A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed the cr ack c ocai ne/pow der coca i ne di ffe r ent i al , deny i ng L es t er ’ s r eques tt o r educe the r at i o s etbythe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T her eaf

t er , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d L es t ert o 22 m onths i n pr i s on, one4

y earof s upervi s ed r el eas e, paym entof a $500 f i ne and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thati tadopt ed the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eportand expl ai ned that“the fi ne i s bel ow the gui del i ne r ange be caus e of the D efe ndant ’ s i nabi l i tyt o pay ; t he C our tdepart s fr om the advi s orygui del i ne r ange f orr eas ons author i zed bythe Sent enci ng G u ideline M an u al, to w it : pu rsua n t t o a 5 K 1 . 1 p lea a g ree m en t bas ed o n D ef en d an t’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . ” A pp. at84. N o otherexpl anat i on w as pr ovi ded forthe s ent ence i m pos ed. II. O n appea l , L es t erar gues thathers ent ence w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d id n o t ad e q u a telya rticu late its c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e se n ten c in g f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth in 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the sentence fo r r easona bleness pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) ( 1) . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 327 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B ec au se L ester m ad e n o o b jecti o n s reg ard ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s art i cul at i ons ats ent enci ng, s he mustnow es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on underpl ai n err or . “The d ev iat ion fro m a leg al rule is ‘error, ’ an d an erro r i s ‘plain’ if itis ‘ clea r’ or ‘ob v iou s. ’ In mo s tc a s e s , a n e r r o ra f

f e c t s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s i f i ti s p r e j u d i c i a l , i . e . , ‘ a f

f e c t e d th e o u t c o me o f th e d istri ct co u rtp roc ee d ing s. ’” U n it ed S tat es v . E v an s, 1 5 5 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). In it s d ec isi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 54 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt m ade c l earthatdi s tr i ctcourt s m us tabi de by18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w hen s ent enci ngSect i on 3553( a) i ns truct s courtt o i m pos e s ent ence s thatar e “s uffi ci ent , butnot 2 gr eat erthan nec es s ary , ” and r equi r es court s t o cons i dera numberof fa ct or s i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . T hos e fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed- ( A) t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o mo t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, 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 ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the def endant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m ed ical care , o r oth er c o rrecti o n al trea tm en t i n the m o st eff ec ti v e m an n er; ( 3) the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; ( 4) the ki nds of s ent ence and the s ent enci ng r ange e s t abl i s hed for. . . the appl i cabl e ca t egoryof off ens e comm i t t ed bythe appl i cabl e ca t egoryof def endant 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); U n it ed S tat es. v. C o o p er, 43 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (20 0 6 ). 5 cr i m i nal defe ndant s . B ooker , 543 U . S. at259- 60. W e have r ece nt l yexpl ai ned that 2 d istric t co u rts n e e d to “ sta te a d e q u a te r e a so n s f o r a se n ten c e o n th e re c o rd so th a t th is courtcan e ngage i n m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K i ng, 454 F. 3d 187, 1 9 6 -9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e d o n o t r e q u ir e th a t c o u rt s d is c u s s c le a rl ym e ri tle s s a rg u m e n ts . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329. A nd court s need not“di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs if th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th e c o u rt to o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in s ent enci ng. ” I d. B utan empt y , m echa ni cal r eci t at i on of ea ch of the fa ct or s i s i ns uffi ci ent w hen “e i therthe def

endantorthe pr os ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es ‘ a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t( pr ovi ded i thas a fa ctual bas i s ) ’ and the courtfai l s t o addr es s i t . ” I d. ( quot i ng U n ited S tate s v . C u n n in g h a m , 4 2 9 F .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re c o rd n e e d s to6

s how that“the courtcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and anys ent enci ng gr ounds pr oper l yr ai s ed bythe part i es w hi ch have r ecogni zed l egal m er i tand fa ctual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d. ” I d. at332. W e h a v e c a re f

u llyre v iew e d th e re c o rd in th is c a se a n d w e c o n c lu d e th a t itis u n clea r w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rttoo k the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors into ac co u n t. In p arti cu lar, L es t eri nvi t ed the courtt o cons i derherhi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs and the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notacknow l edge thi s i nvi t at i on or di s cus s the cont entof thes e fa ct or s . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s br i ef s t at ementof r eas ons for i m pos i ng the s ent ence does notpr ovi de a s at i s fac t oryexpl anat i on. B eca us e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d id n o t ad e q u a telyd e sc rib e its a p p lica tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs, re m a n d is a p p ro p ri a te . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id ex p li cit lyad d ress o n e o f L ester’s sen tenc ing arg u m en ts. It re jec ted L e ste r’s in v itatio n to m o d if yth e c ra c k c o c a in e /p o w d e r c o c a in e ra tio p ro v id e d in the G u idelines . O n ap p ea l, L ester d id n o t cha ll en g e this p art of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n heropeni ng br i ef, but , pur s uantt o a Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( j ) l ett er , s he ca l l ed our a tte n tio n to o u r r e c e n t d e c is io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . G u n te r, 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In th a t ca se , w e h e ld “ a se n ten c in g c o u rt e rrs w h e n it b e liev e s th a t ith a s n o d isc re tio n to co n side r th e c rac k /po w d er c o ca ine d iffe ren ti al i n co rpo rated in the G u idelines . ” G u n ter, 462 F. 3d at249.7

B eca us e the abi l i tyt o s ubm i ts uppl ement al author i t i es underR ul e 28( j ) does not g en era ll yall o w p arti es to raise arg u m en ts othe rw ise w aive d , see U n it ed S tat es v . B arb o u r, 3 9 3 F . 3 d 8 2 , 9 4 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U n it ed S tat es v . Jo n es, 30 8 F . 3 d 4 2 5 , 4 2 7 n . 1 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), w e n e e d n o t e v a lu a te th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a p p ly th e G u id e lin e s ’ r a tio . E ven i f w e w er e t o cons i derL es t er ’ s new ar gum ent , w e w oul d be unl i kel yt o vaca t e her sen tenc e o n G u n ter gro u n d s. In c o n tr ast t o the d istri ct co u rtin G u n ter, this D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t erron eo u slyind icate tha t app ly ing the G u idelines ’ rati o w as m an d atory . R athe r, the D i stri ctC ou rtseem s t o h ave co nsi dered t he ap pli cat i on of the rat i o in L est er’ s case and dec i ded i tw as appr opr i at e. A ccor di ngl y , w e do notbel i eve the D i s tr i ctC our ts how ed a n yre v e rs ib le e rr o r i n th is a s p e c t o f its d e c is io n . N o n e th e le s s , w e re m a n d f o r r e -s e n te n c in g f

o r r e a s o n s d is c u s s e d a b o v e . A s ent enci ng courtm us tgi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s . T hat c o n sid e ra tio n m u st b e d e m o n stra ted in th e re c o rd . H e re , itw a s n o t. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill v a c a te th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d th e m a tter to the D i s tr i ctC our tforr e- s ent enci ng.