2009 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 5-22-2009 

# U SA v . O m a r Rein a 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 . 08-2417

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_2009

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 sit y 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 2009 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 sit y 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 . Om a r Rein a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1329. 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_2009/1329T h e H o n o rab le T h o m as I. V an ask ie, U n itedS tates D istrict Ju d g e f o r th e M id d le * Di s tr i c t of Pe nns yl vani a , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. 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. 08- 2417

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. OM AR RE I NA, a /k /a O m a r R e in a J a ra m illo , a /k /a P ia s a ,

a/ k/ a G or do, a/ k/ a Fer nando D i az ,

O m arR ei na, Appel l ant

______________ A pp eal from t he U nit ed S t at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 08- cr - 00030) D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui t L . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2009

___________ B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , and V A N A S K IE , D i s t r i ct

Judge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay22, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ONOn May 7, 20 08 , Rei na was i nd ic te d f or distribu ti onof

heroin in the Unite d 1 Stat es Distri ct

Co urt for the Eas te rn Distri ct of Penn sylvania ; he ple aded gu il ty . He was sen ten cedo nN o v em

b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , to 1 5 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t to runco n curren tly w ith th e sen ten ce im

p o sedinth is case. R ein a h as ap p ealedh is dru g -relatedsen ten ce as w ell. -2- ___________ G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : O m arR ei na ( “R ei na”) appea l s t he j udgm entof s ent ence ent er ed byt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt o n M a y9 , 2 0 0 8 . R e in a , a n a tiv e o f C o lo m b ia, w a s a rre ste d o n O c to b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , in P h il ad elph ia fo r co n sp ir ac yto d ist ri b u te, an d p o sses sion w it h inten t t o d ist ri b u te m o re t han 100 gr ams of her oi n. R ei na had be en depor t ed on J une 1, 2000, aft ers er vi ng a 60- m ont h s ent ence fordi s t r i but i ng coca i ne and a concur r ent10- y ears ent ence i n N ew J er s ey f o r p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . Re i n a wa s i n d i c t e d i n t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a f

o rv i o l a t i o n o f

8 U. S . C. §§ 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) fori l l egal r eent r yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on. R ei na 1 pl eade d gui l t yon Febr uar y5, 2008. R ei na’s base offen se l evel w as 8; t he D i st ri ct C ou rti m po sed a 16 -l evel i ncrease (U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )) b e c a u s e R e in a “ w a s d e p o rt e d . . . a f te r a c o n v ic tio n f

o r a . . . dr ug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e forw hi ch t he s ent ence i m pos ed exc eede d 13 m ont hs . ” A ft era 3- poi nt r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y( U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1) , hi s offe ns e l evel w as 21 . W i t h a cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryof V , R ei na’s G uidel i nes range w as 70-87 m on t hs. R ei na’ s couns el ar gued t hatt he 16- l evel enhanc ement bas ed on a pr i or aggr avat edFa s t - tr a c k pr ogr am s “ a l l ow de fe ndant s who vi ol at e [8 U. S. C. ] § 1326 t o r e c e i ve 2 l owe r s e nt e nc e s i n e xc hange for wa i vi ng c e rt a i n r i ght s , i nc l udi ng i ndi c tm e nt by gr and ju ry .” Un it ed Stat es v. Vargas , 477 F.3d94 , 98 n .8 (3d C ir . 200 7) (c it ing U nite d S tate s v. Me ji a , 461 F. 3d 158, 160 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ) . I n 2003 Congr e s s c odi fi e d i t s a ppr ova l of the s e pr ogr am s i n Pub. L. No. 108- 21, § 401( m) ( 2) ( B) , 117 St at . 650, 675 ( 2003) , and the Uni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng Comm i s s i on a c c or di ngl y a dopt e d U. S. S. G. § 5K3. 1, “which prov ides that , ‘ [u ]p onm otion o f the Go vernm ent, the c ou rt m ay depart downwar d not

m or e than 4 l e ve l s pur s uant t o an e ar l y

di s pos i t i on pr ogr am

author i z e d by the Att orney

Generalof

the Unite d S tate s andthe Unite d S tate s Att orney fo r the distri ct i n whi c h the c ourt

r e s i de s . ’ ” Me

ji a , 461 F. 3d at

161. -3- f e lo n yv io late d R e in a ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. T h e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted th is a rg u m e n t b a s e d o n s e ttle d S u p re m e C o u rt a n d T h ir d C ir c u it c a s e la w . D efe ns e couns el al s o ar gued t hata s ent ence w i t hi n t he 70- 87 m ont h G ui del i nes r ange w oul d cr eat e unw ar r ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) b e c a u s e t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a l a c k e d a “ f a s t - t r a c k ” s e n t e n c i n g p r o g r a m, 2 and t hus R ei na w oul d be s ubj ectt o a hi ghers ent ence t han a de fenda nt i n a j ur i s di ct i on t hathad s uch a pr ogr am. D efe ns e couns el as ked t he cour t t o gr anta var i ance . T he D i s t r i ctC our t deni ed t he r eques t , fi ndi ng t hatappl i cabl e ca s e l aw couns el ed agai ns t s uch a va r i ance , and t hatR ei na w oul d not have be en el i gi bl e fors uch r el i ef anyw ay . T he D i s t r i ctC our t cons i der ed t he Sect i on 3553( a) fac t or s and, on M ay9, 2008, s ent ence d R ei na t o 70 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand 3 y ear s of s uper vi s ed. I. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . O ur r evi ew of pr ocedur al er r or s i n s ent enci ng i ncl udes a cour t ’ s i m pr opercal cul at i on of t he-4-

G ui del i nes , “t r eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat or y , fai l i ng t o cons i dert he § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a tely e x p la in th e c h o s e n s e n te n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . W is e , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence foran abus e of di s cr et i on, gi vi ng al l eged f actual er r or s a “c l ear l yer r oneous ” r evi ew but r evi ew i ng “pur el yl egal ” er r or s , s uch as m is in te rp re ta tio n s o f

th e G u id e lin e s , d e n o v o . Id .

II . Reina argues that juris dict ions wh ic h h ost “ fast -tra ck” program s often give il le gal re-en try d ef en d an ts m

u chsh o rter sen ten ces, w h ereas d ef en d an ts lik e R ein a inn o n -fasttr ac k j uris dict ions ar e dis advantaged because they ar e a utom at ic al ly

subj ec t t o a high er o f f en se lev el. R ein a arg u es th at th ese d if f eren ces insen ten ces acro ss g eo g rap h ic b o un d aries are “u n w arran tedsen ten ce d isp arities” un d er 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(6 ). Reina focuses his argum ent on the inte rplay of two cas es : our deci si onin Un it ed S tates v . V arg as, 4 7 7 F .3 d9 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 7 ), an dth e S up rem e C o urt’s d ecisio nin Kim brou gh v. Un it ed Stat es , 128 S. Ct. 558 (200 7). Rei na chal le ng es the Dis tr ic t Court ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i on that Var ga s a ppl i e d i n thi s c a s e on the gr ound that Ki m br ough o v erru les V arg as. In Vargas, a c as e fact

uall y si m il ar to this ca se , we hel d that “ the dis pari ty betwee n se ntence s i n f

as t- tr ac k andno n-fast -tra ck distri ct s i s a utho ri ze d b y

Co ng re ss and, hence, w arran ted ”; thu s w e f

o un dV arg as’s sen ten ce w as reaso n ab le. V arg as, 4 7 7 F .3 dat 9 8 .Ki m br ough wa s r e c e nt l y

c l ar i fi e d by

Spear s v. U ni t ed St at es , 129 S. C t . 840, 3 843 ( 2009) , w hi ch hel d t hatD i s t r i ctC our t s m ayvar yfr om t he cr ack c ocai ne G ui del i nes bas ed on pol i cydi s agr eement s , “and nots i m pl ybas ed on an i ndi vi dual i zed de t er m i nat i on t hatt heyy i el d an exc es s i ve s ent ence i n a par t i cul arcas e. ” -5- W e c i t e d c a s e s fr om

anum be r of our s i s t e r Court s of Appe a l s , a l l of whi c h r e a c he d the sam e c on clusion. Id. at 98-99 . W e joined o ur si st er Circ uits and h el d that “ a dis tr ic t court’ s r efusalto adju st

a s ente nce t o com

pensat e for the abse nce of a fast- tr ac k p rogram doe s not m ake as e nt e nc e unr e a s onabl e . ” I d. at 99. W e he l d that

“ the e s t abl i s hm e nt

of fast -tra ck prog ram s i s a

m atte r l eft t o C on gres s andthe Att orney General ” andthat

wh en Congr e s s author i z e s as e nt e nc i ng di s par i ty , that di s par i ty c annot s e rve a s agr ound for var i anc e fr om

the Gui de l i ne s . I d. at

100. Ki m br ough, howe ve r , de a l t

wi th c r a c k/ c oc a i ne s e nt e nc i ng di s par i t i e s . The Distri ct Co urt there held that

the defendant’s l engthy

se ntence rang e r efle ct ed dispropo rt ionate punishm ent for cra ck of fend er s. On appeal , the Fo urth Circ uit vac at ed the bel ow -Guideli nes s ente nce beca use the Distri ct

Co urt had held, i n its disc re ti on , that Ki m br ough s houl d s e rve l e s s t i m e than the Gui de l i ne s pr e s c r i be d. Th e Sup re m e Cou rt

then held that

wh il e c ou rt s c an no t i gn ore s tatutory m ax im u m s an dm in im

u m s, “it w o u ldn o t b e anab u se o f d iscretio nf

o r a d istrict co urt to co n clu d e w h ensen ten cin g a p articu lar d ef en d an t th at th e crack/p o w d er d isp arity yield s a s e nt e nc e ‘ gr e at e r

than ne c e s s ary ’ t o a c hi e ve § 3553( a ) ’ s pur pos e s , e ve n i n am i ne - r

un c a s e . ” Ki m

br ough, 128 S. Ct . at

575. 3R ei na al s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hat , had R ei na bee n 4 s e n te n c e d in a f

a s t- tr a c k ju ri s d ic tio n , h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n e lig ib le f o r r e lie f a n y w a y . I t i s not cl earfr om t he r ecor d w het herR ei na w oul d have be en el i gi bl e forfas t - t r ack se n ten c in g b a se d u p o n h is tim e lyg u ilt yp lea b e c a u se f a st-tra c k se n ten c in g re q u ire m e n ts v a r yb yj u r i s d i c t i o n . Re g a r d l e s s , t h i s i s s u e d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t i n t h i s c a s e , a n d we ac co rdin g lyd ec li n e to a d d ress itan yfu rt h er. -6- Reina argues that Kim

brou gh ov er

rule s Var gas by

anal og y and all ow s a

Distri ct Court t o vary i t s s e nt e nc e on the ba s i s of unwarr ant e d di s par i ty c aus e d by co n g ressio n ally

ap p ro v edp o licies su chas f ast-tracksen ten cin g . We can n o t ag ree. We h eldinV arg as th at th e d ef en d an t h as th e b urd eno f

sh o w in g th at h is circu m stan ces “ex actly

p aralleled ” th o se o f

sp ecif ic d ef en d an ts inf

ast-trackj urisd ictio n s; Vargas had f

ai le d to d o so b ec ause he on ly m ade genera l a ll egat ions abou t potenti al d isp arities, an dth eref

o re th e D istrict C o urt co u ldn o t co n sid er su cha co m p ariso n . Var ga s , 477 F. 3d at

100 ( quot i ng Uni t e d St at e s v. Char l e s , 467 F. 3d 828, 833 n. 7 ( 3d Cir. 20 06 )) . R ein a’s situ atio nis n o d if f eren t. T h ere is n o ev id en ce inth e reco rdto sh o w , w ith th e sp ecif icity requ iredb y

V arg as an dC h arles, th at R ein a w as actu ally treatedd if

f eren tly f ro m sim ilarly situ atedd ef

en d an ts inf

ast-trackj urisd ictio n s. V arg as, 4 7 7 F .3 dat 1 0 0 . R ein a sets f

o rtho n ly sw eep in g g en eral arg u m en ts th at h e w as treatedd if f eren tly th anif he ha d ha d a c c e s s t o afa s t - tr a c k pr ogr am , and the r e for e ha s not s at i s fi e d hi s bur de n of pr oo f. 4 II I.-7-

Re i naar gue s that

the Di s tr i c t

Court vi ol at e d hi s Fi fth and hi s Si xth Am e ndm e nt r i ght s by i nc r e a s i ng hi s m axi m

um s e nt e nc e ba s e d on apr i or c onvi c t i on not

c har ge d i n the in d ictm en t o r p ro v edto a j ury b eyo n da reaso n ab le d o ub t. R ein a n o tes th at 8 U .S .C . § 1326( a ) c arr i e s atwo- ye ar m axi m um s e nt e nc e , but

he wa s s e nt e nc e d unde r

Se c t i on 13 26 (b)( 2), which incr ea se s the m axim um se ntence to 20 years wh en a defendant was pr e vi ous l y

r e m ove d for

c onvi c t i on of an “ a ggr avat e d fe l ony . ” Re i naar gue s that the i ndi c tm e nt

i n hi s c a s e ne ve r

m e nt i one d apr i or

c onvi c t i on for

an a ggr avat e d fe l ony , and thu s h is sen ten ce v io lates Ap p ren d i v . N ew Jersey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). Ho wever, Reina c on ce des that his ar gu m ent i s forec lose d b y the Sup re m e Cou rt ’s d ecisio ninA lm en d arez-T o rres v . U n itedS tates, 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 (1 9 9 8 ) (h o ld in g th at 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6(b)(2) s et s forth a s ente ncing f ac tor for the s ub se ct ion (a) of fense; the fac t of an a l i e n’ s pr i or

c onvi c t i on i s not

an e l e m e nt

of the c r i m e and thus doe s not have t o be char ged in the indictm ent t o b e a fact or in se ntenci ng ), and o ur op inions in Un it ed Stat es v. Col e m an, 451 F. 3d 154 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( hol di ng that Al m e ndar e z - Torr e s i s s t i l l good law) and U nite d S tate s v. Ordaz , 398 F.3d23 6 (3dCir. 20 05 ) ( applying A lm endarez T o rres to S ix thA m en dm en t claim s). I V. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

did n ot abuse i ts disc re ti onin se ntenci ng Reina, and we willaffirm it s jud gm ent of sente nce.