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 12-20-2007 

# U SA v . M o ole n a ar 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 . 06-1342

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 . M oo le n a ar " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 30. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/30NON- 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 C as e N o: 06- 1342 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ; G O V ER N M EN T O F TH E V I RG I N I SLA N D S,

A p p e llan ts v. L U C IE N A . M O O L E N A A R , II

_____________________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands

D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 03- C R - 145 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R aym ond L . Fi nch

_____________________ A R G U E D : D ece m ber11, 2007 B e f o re : S M IT H , N Y G A A R D , a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber20, 2007 ) A r m ando O . B oni l l a ( A r gued) N i cho l as A . M ars h U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce Cri m i nal D i vi s i on 1 3 0 1 N e w Y o r k A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20005 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts A r tur o R . W at l i ngt on, J r . ( A r gued) #3B St or e G r onne G ade, P. O . B ox 261 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I , 00804 C ouns el f orAppel l ee2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M. T hi s appea l conce r ns the r eas onabl enes s of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s bel ow - gui del i nes se n ten c in g o f

L u c ien A . M o o len a a r, II (“ M o o len a a r” ). A f ter a th re e -d a yju rytrial, M ool enaa rw as convi ct ed of: ( 1) conver s i on of governm entfunds i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 666( a) ( 1) ( A ) ; ( 2) gr and l ar cenyi n vi ol at i on of 14 V . I . C . §§ 1081 and 1083; and ( 3) m aki ng a fa l s e s t at ementi n vi ol at i on of 14 V . I . C . § 843( 3) . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts et M ool enaa r ’ s T ot al O ffe ns e Level at14 and hi s C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryatI , r es ul t i ng in a s en tenc ing g u ideline ra n g e f o r C o u n t I o f 1 5 to 2 1 m o n ths inc arc era ti o n . T h e c o u rt then s ent ence d M ool enaa rt o fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed pr obat i on as t o C ountI and i m pos ed a fi ne of $30, 883. 09; an amountequal t o the i nt er es tthatw oul d have a ccrued on a l oan of th e a mo u n to f

g o v e r n me n tmo n e yM o o l e n a a rc o n v e r t e d . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entand r emand forr es ent enci ng. I. M ool enaa ri s a form erhi gh- r anki ng offi ci al i n the V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof H eal th. I n J anuary1995, he s ubm i t t ed tw o s t al e governm entpayr ol l chec ks t o the D epart m entof Fi nance forr e- i s s uance . I n J une 1995, the D epart m entof Fi nance p ro c e ss e d th a t re q u e st a n d a d d e d th e n e t su m o f $ 1 ,6 2 6 .2 5 to M o o len a a r’s b iw e e k lyT he D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands had j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cr i m i nal m att er 1 pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231 and 48 U . S. C . § 1612. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (b). 3 p a yro ll ch e c k . D u e to a n e rro r, th e g o v e rn m e n t th e re a f ter c o n tin u e d to a d d th is a m o u n t to h is p a yc h e c k th ro u g h S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 0 . In to tal, M o o len a a r re c e iv e d $ 1 0 2 ,4 9 7 .8 5 in err oneous paym ent s , an amountthatm or e than doubl ed hi s neti ncome everyotherpay p e ri o d f o r m o re th a n f

iv e y e a rs . F o l l o wi n g a th r e e - d a ytr i a l , a j u ryc o n v i c t e d M o o l e n a a ro f a l l c h a r g e s . On D ece m ber14, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our t– overthe governm ent ’ s obj ect i ons – s ent ence d h im to f iv e y e a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d p ro b a tio n a n d im p o s e d a f in e o f $ 3 0 ,8 8 3 .0 9 a s to C o u n t I . A d d it ion all y , the c o u rtsen tenc ed M o o lena ar to c o n cu rren t gen era l t erm s o f tw o y ea rs p ro b a tio n a s to C o u n ts II a n d II I. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t: I have studi ed t he P r obat i on r eport , and of cour s e I’ ve hear d ar gum ent s fr om bot h s i d e s , a n d I a m of th e o p i n i o n th a tth i s i s o n e o f th o s e c a s e s whe r e, because of the ci r cumst ance s thatI ’ ve hea r d, w oul d not. . . j us t i fy confi nement . A nd I am, ther efor e, nots ent enci ng [the def endant ] t o a t erm of c o n f in e m e n t. O n D ece m ber22, 2005, the courtfi l ed a St at ementof R eas ons , w hi ch s t i pul at ed that “[t ] he C our tdepart ed fr om the advi s orys ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange pur s uantt o T i t l e 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) , the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs of the def endant . ” O n J anuary20, 2006, the U ni t ed St at es and the G o v e rn m e n t o f

th e V irg in Isla n d s f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 1T he fa ct or s a s ent enci ng courtm us tt ake i nt o acc ounti ncl ude: 2 ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics 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 ) to re f

lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , to p ro m o te r es pectforthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe 4 II. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , the Supr eme C our thel d thatm andat oryappl i cat i on of the Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w as uncons t i tut i onal . 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . U ndert he re su lti n g a d v iso ry -g u id e lin e s re g im e , D istric t C o u rts e n jo ysig n if

ica n t latitu d e in i m po si ng cri m i nal s entences. R i ta v. U ni t ed Stat es , — U . S. — , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2465 (2 0 0 7 ); G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , — U . S. — , N o. 06 - 79 49 , 20 07 W L 429 21 16 , a t*7 ( U . S. D e c . 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) . P o st- B oo ker, ap p ell ate rev iew is l im it ed to rev iew ing the tri al co u rt ’s s ent ence for“r eas onabl enes s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). P ra c tica llysp e a k in g , the re a so n a b len e ss sta n d a rd o f a p p e llate re v iew is a k in to a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . G a ll, 2007 W L 4292116, at*7 ( “O urexpl anat i on of

‘ r eas onabl enes s ’ r evi ew i n t he B ookeropi ni on m ade i tpel l uci dl ycl earthatthe fa m i l i ar abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d of r evi ew now appl i es t o appel l at e r evi ew of s ent enci ng deci s i ons . ”) . I n conduct i ng a r eas onabl enes s r evi ew , w e mustens ur e thatthe s ent enci ng c o u rt g a v e “ m e a n in g f

u l c o n s id e ra tio n ” to th e s e n te n c in g f a c to rs a rt ic u la te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) and “r eas onabl yappl i ed them t o the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” C ooper , 437

2o f f e n se ; (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 ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tre a tm e n t in th e m o st e f f e c tiv e m a n n e r; (3 ) th e k in d s o f

se n ten c e s a v a ilab le; (4) the k ind s o f se n tenc e a n d the s en tenc ing ran g e e stab li sh ed fo r-- ( A ) the appl i cabl e ca t egoryof off ens e comm i t t ed bythe app l i cable cat ego ryof d efen dan tas setforth in the g uidel i nes

. . . ; ( 5) anypert i nentpol i cys t at ement. . . i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C o m m iss io n . . . tha t . . . is in e f f e c t o n th e d a te th e d e f

e n d a n t is sen tenc ed [;] (6 ) th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o f f e n s e . 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). 5 F .3 d a t 3 0 0 . A s a th re sh o ld m a tter, it is th e re f o re v ital th a t th e D istric t C o u rt “ sta te adequa t e r eas ons fora s ent ence on the r ecor d s o thatthi s courtcan e ngage i n m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 -9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e p a rty c h a lle n g in g th e s e n te n c e h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332.6

H e re , the g o v e rn m e n t sa y s th a t th e se n ten c e th e D istric t C o u rt im p o se d is b o th p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se (1 ) “ th e se n ten c in g ju d g e f a iled to g i v e a n yme a n i n g f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o th e r e l e v a n ts e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s c o d i f

i e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . . . ” and ( 2) “w hen r eas onabl yappl i ed t o the fa ct s of thi s cas e, the r el evant se n ten c in g f

a c to rs d e m a n d th e im p o sitio n o f a p riso n se n ten c e . . . . ” M o o len a a r, in c o n tr a s t , a r g u e s th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r tp r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n tj u s t i f

i c a t i o n f o rh i s b e l o wg u id e lin e s s e n ten c e to w ith sta n d d e f e re n tial p o st- B ookers crut i ny . W e agr ee thatthe se n ten c e c a n n o t sta n d b e c a u se th e se n ten c in g c o u rt f a iled to a rticu late th e ra tio n a le f o r its b e lo w -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a se n tenc ing co u rtac ted re aso n ab ly , w e e x am ine th e c o u rt ’s a p p lica tio n o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it re a so n a b lya p p lied th e m to the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. “I n doi ng s o, w e appl ya def er ent i al s t andar d, the tr i al courtbei ng i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence i n l i ghtof the part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 3 0 . M e a n in g f u l ap p e llate re v iew , h o w e v e r, is im p o ss ib le w h e re th e se n ten c in g c o u rt f a ils to a rticu late th e ra tio n a le f o r i ts s e n te n c e . G a ll, 2 0 0 7 W L 4 2 9 2 1 1 6 , at * 1 2 (“ A f ter se ttl in g o n th e a p p ro p ria te s ent ence , he [the s ent enci ng J udge] m us tadequa t el yexpl ai n the chos en s ent ence t o al l ow fo r m ea n ing fu l app ell ate rev iew an d to p rom o te th e p erc ep ti o n o f f air sen tenc ing . ”); K i ng , 454 F. 3d at196- 97. H er e, the r ecor d thor oughl yfai l s t o el uci dat e the bas i s forthe s ent ence the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed.7

A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d l i t t l e more than not e thati thad “stu d ied” the P re-S en tenc e R ep o rtan d “h ea rd” the a rgu m en ts of b o th side s b ef

o re pr onounci ng that“the ci r cumst ance s ” of the ca s e di d notj us t i fyconfi nement . T he D ec em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 S tat em en t of R ea so n s p rov ided n o ad d it ion al i n sigh t i n to the co u rt ’s thi nki ng, s t at i ng onl ythatthe depa r tur e fr om the gui del i nes w as bas ed upon “Ti t l e 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) , the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t.” A t n o p o in t d id th e se n ten c in g c o u rt d isc u ss h o w th is f a c to r m ili tate s in f

a v o r o f th e se n ten c e it u lti m a telyim p o se d . M o re o v e r, th e re c o rd is compl et el ys i l entr egar di ng i f orhow the D i s tr i ctC our tw ei ghed the r emai ni ng s i x § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . W her e, as her e, the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l s t o pr ovi de a r eas oned bas i s fora cr i m i nal se n ten c e , w e c a n n o t en g a g e in m e a n in g f u l ap p e llate re v iew . Q u ite s im p ly , d e f e rrin g to r e a s o n i n g th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e c l i n e s t o p r o v i d e i s i mp o s s i b l e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t s u s ta in th e s e n te n c e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt im p o s e d in th is c a s e . A ddi t i onal l y , cert ai n conductof the D i s tr i ctJ udge exhi bi t ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng tr oubl es us . A tthatt i m e, then- C hi ef J udge Fi nch s t at ed thatthe Pr es ent ence R eportr ecomm ended a s ent ence of pr obat i on. T he r ecomm endat i on s t at ed no s uch thi ng. W hen the governm entpr oper l yobj ect ed t o thats t at ement , J udge Fi nch r es ponded by s t at i ng: “I don’ thave t o s ent ence , acc or di ng t o w hatM r . Sm i th t el l s m e t o do. G one hom e. G oodby e. ” H e then thr ew the Pr es ent ence R eportacr os s the benc h and l eftthe8

courtr oom . W hen cons i der ed i n conj unct i on w i th the D i s tr i ctJ udge’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de anybas i s forhi s s ent ence , thi s epi s ode of i nt emper ance l eave s us w i th m or e than a p a s s in g c o n c e rn a s to th e a p p e a ra n c e o f h is im p a rt ia lity. “A l though ‘ [i ] ti s the s t andar d pr act i ce i n the di s tr i ctcourt s and i n thi s ci r cui tt hat a case on rem and i s ass i gn ed to the judge w ho ori ginal l yheard i t , ’ w e can, i n the exerci se of ours upervi s orypow er , r eas s i gn thi s cas e t o a di ffe r entj udge upon r emand. ” G overnm ent

of the Vi r gi n I s lands v. W

alker , 261 F. 3d 370, 376 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e have notart i cul at ed a s peci fi c t es tt o det erm i ne w hen r eas s i gnm ent o f a c a s e to a d if

f e re n t ju d g e f

o r r e s e n te n c in g is a p p ro p ri a te . Id . H o w e v e r, su c h a c tio n is cal l ed forw hen i ti s nece s s aryt o “pr es erve notonl ythe r eal i tybutal s o the appe ar ance of the pr operfunct i oni ng of the j udi ci aryas a neutr al , i m part i al admi ni s tr at orof j us t i ce. ” A l exande rv. P r i m er i ca H oldi ngs , 1 0 F .3 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 5 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 3 ). T h is is s u c h a c a s e . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entand r emand w i th the i ns truct i on thatthe C l erks o f f ic e re a s s ig n th is c a s e f

o r r e s e n te n c in g .