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 6-25-2009 

# U SA v . J o se B rit o 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 . 08-1527

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_2009

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 2009 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 B rit o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1134. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1134NOT 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- 1527

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OS E BR I T O, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 00- cr - 00635) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R onal d L . B uckw al t er

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

J une 12, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

J o s é Br i t o a p p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e f o rth e th i r d t i me . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ec au se w e w ri te ex clus ivelyfo r th e p arti es, w e re co u n t on lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary to o u r d is p o s itio n . B r i t o pl eade d gui l t yt o t en count s ar i s i ng fr om hi s i nvol vementi n i l l egal drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t y . O n O ct ober24, 2003, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B r i t o t o 235 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as atthe bot t om of the 235 t o 293 m ont hs G ui del i nes r ange. O n M ar ch 25, 2005, w e r emanded B r i t o’ s cas e forr es ent enci ng pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . A l t hough B r i t o’ s G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange rem aine d 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n ths, th e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted B ri to a s u b stan ti al do w n w ard var i ance t o 140 m ont hs bas ed on i t s fi ndi ng thatthe 100- t o- 1 cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di s par i tyw as t oo har s h. B r i t o and the G overnm entappea l ed thats ent ence . O n A ug ust17 , 20 07 , w e vaca t ed the 14 0-m on t h sentence and rem and ed the case f o r re se n ten c in g b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d u n d e r th e n -p re v a ili n g p re c e d e n t in cat egor i cal l yr ej ect i ng t he 100- t o- 1 cr ack/pow derdi s par i t y . U pon r emand, B r i t o s ought the s t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um of 120 m onths i m pr i s onm enti n l i ghtof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s p re v io u s v a ria n c e , the in h e re n t u n f a irn e ss o f

th e c ra c k /p o w d e r d isp a rity , an d h is good conductw hi l e i n j ai l . T he G overnm entar gued fora s ent ence fal l i ng w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange.3

I n N ovember2007, pr i ort o B r i t o’ s r es ent enci ng hear i ng, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i s s ued A m endment706, w hi ch l ow er ed the bas e off ens e l evel form os tcr ack o f f e n se s b ytw o lev e ls a n d re su lted in a n e w G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s in B r i t o’ s cas e. A m ont h l at er , t he Supr eme C our ti s s ued K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S . C t . 55 8 (200 7), w hich hel d thata dis t ri ctcou rtm aycon si der the G uidel i nes’ cr ack/pow derdi s par i t yi n det erm i ni ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence . A t th e re se n ten c in g o n F e b ru a ry1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t it s pr evi ous s ent ence w as nott he r es ul tof a c at egor i cal r ej ect i on of the cr ack/pow der d ispa ri ty , b u t r athe r, the re su lto f c are fu l con side rati o n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) sen tenc ing fa ctors a s r e q u i r e d b y B ooker . T h e D istri ct C o u rtex erc ised it s d iscreti o n u n d er K i m br ough and r ei ns t at ed the 140- m ont h s ent ence , fi ndi ng thatthe s ent ence i thad pr evi ous l yi m pos ed rem aine d just an d p rop er u n d er B oo ker and K i m br ough. II. Br i t o a r g u e s t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b yi mp o s i n g th e s a me s ent ence i thad i m pos ed pr i ort o K i m br ough and A m endment706. A ft erappl y i ng the tw o -l ev el red u cti o n as re q u ir ed b yA m en d m en t 70 6 , B ri to claim s the D istri ct C o u rt s houl d have r educe d hi s s ent ence fr om 140 m ont hs t o t he s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um of 1 20 m on t hs. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence underthe def er ent i al abus e of di s cr et i on s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 4 (20 0 7 ). O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd4

d e m o n stra tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt to o k p a in s to e x p lain th a t it s in iti a l 1 4 0 -m o n th s ent ence — a s ent ence t hatfal l s bel ow the G ui del i nes r ange — w as r eas onabl e and a p p ro p ri a te in lig h t o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs , K i m br ough an d A m en d m en t 70 6 . In rese n tenc ing B ri to to 1 4 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, the D istri ct C o u rtw eigh ed B ri to’s per s onal char act er i s t i cs , i ncl udi ng hi s age a nd l ack of a pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d, as w el l as the s er i ous natur e of the off ens e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen cons i der ed the s ent enci ng di s par i t i es betw een c r ack a nd pow dercoca i ne, and ac know l edged the tw o- l evel r educt i on i n the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on pur s uantt o A m endment706. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng the s ame 140- m ont h s ent ence . III . B r i t o nextar gues t hatt he cr ack c ocai ne mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence and G u id e lin e s ra n g e d e p riv e h im o f d u e p ro c e ss u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. W e re v iew th is a rg u m e n t f

o r p la in e rr o r b e c a u s e it w a s n o t r a is e d p re v io u s ly. U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 507 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 -45 (19 9 3 ). T hi s C our thas cons i s t ent l yfound thatther e i s a r at i onal bas i s forthe cr ack/pow der d is p a ri ty, an d th a t it d o e s n o t v io la te s u b s ta n tiv e ri g h ts . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr az i er , 981 F. 2d 92, 96 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . Si nce thi s w as the ca s e bef or e B oo ker and K i m br ough , itis e v e r m o re so n o w th a t d istric t co u rts m a ytak e in to a c c o u n t th e d isp a rity i n c a l c u l a t i n g a s e n t e n c e , a n d g r a n ta v a r i a n c e wh e r e a p p r o p r i a t e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we5

s um m ar i l yr ej ectB r i t o’ s Fi fth A m endmentchal l enge a nd w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt.