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 4-22-2009 

# U SA v . Iri z arry 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 . 07-4735

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 . Ir i zarry " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1504. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1504NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4735

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT O I RI Z AR RY , a/k/ a R ober t o A ceve do R o b e r t o I r i z a r r y, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00600- 1 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, SL O V I T E R , and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2009)

____ OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antR ober t o I r i zarr ypl ed gui l t yt o di s t r i but i on of fi ftygr ams orm or e of coca i ne bas e ( cr ack) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen i m pos ed the s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence of t en y ear s . O n appea l , I r i zarr ycont ends thathi s s ent ence v io la te d th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n c o m p o n e n t o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t’ s D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . I. I n J ul y2003, a conf

i dent i al s our ce i nform ed i nves t i gat or s fr om the D rug E nfor cementA gencyt hats he coul d pur chas e quart er - pound quant i t i es of cr ack c ocai ne fr om an i ndi vi dual l at eri dent i fi ed as I r i zarry . O n J ul y11, 2003, the conf i dent i al s our ce pur chas ed appr oxi m at el y122 gr ams of cr ack f r om I r i zarr yi n a tr ans act i on thatw as vi deo- and audi o- t aped. T hi s s al e t ook pl ace w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool . A ft erthe confi dent i al s our ce a r r anged a s i m i l artr ans act i on i n A ugus t2003, I r i zarr yw as arr es t ed w hi l e i n pos s es s i on of appr oxi m at el y125 gr ams of cr ack. I r i zarr yw as i ndi ct ed on fourcount s of di s t r i but i on of drugs , tw o of w hi ch r el at ed t o di s t r i but i on w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a pr ot ect ed l ocat i on. I r i zarr ypl eade d gui l t yt o C ount O ne, w hi ch r el at ed t o t he J ul y11, 2003, tr ans act i on des cr i bed above , i n excha nge for dis m i ssal of the rem ai ning cou nts . A ts ent enci ng, I r i zarr y , w ho i s H i s pani c, r ai s ed an e qual pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o t he m a n d a to ry m in im u m te n -ye a r s e n te n c e p ro v id e d in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A ). Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued that§ 841( b) , w hi ch i ncorpor at es a 100: 1 r at i o betw een c r ack a ndTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 3231 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s m o v e d to e n f o rc e Iriz a rry ’s a p p e llate w ai ver . I r i zarr yhas opp os ed thatm ot i on beca us e hi s pl ea agr eementpr ovi des t hat“[t ] hi s w ai veri s noti nt ended t o barthe as s er t i on of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s thatthe r el evantcase law hol ds ca n n o t be w a iv ed . ” A p p ea ll an t’ s [s ic] R esp o n se to A p p ell ee ’s M ot i on t o E nfor ce A ppel l at e W ai verand forSu mm aryA ffi r m ance a t 1 , U nited S tates v. Ir izarry , N o . 0 7 -47 3 5 (3d C ir . M ar. 11 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e have pr evi ous l ym ade cl earthat“a s ent ence bas ed on cons t i tut i onal l yi m perm i s s i bl e cr i t er i a, s uch as r ace . . . ca n be chal l enged on a ppeal even i f the def endant e xecut ed a bl anket w ai ver of hi s appea l r i ght s . ” U n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 483 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , I r i zarr ydi d not w a iv e h is ri g h t to b ri n g th e in s ta n t a p p e a l. 3 coca i ne pow derw ei ght s fort he purpos es of i t s m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s , w as raci al l ydis cri m i natoryand / or w i t ho ut a r at i on al basi s. T he D i stri ctC ou rtrej ect ed those ar gum ent s and s ent ence d I r i zarr yt o t he mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence on C ountO ne. 1 I I . O n appea l , I r i zarr yr enew s hi s cont ent i on thatthe s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s ent ence pr ovi ded by21 U . S. C . § 841( b) vi ol at es hi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s beca us e, t hough fac i al l yneutr al , § 841( b) w as enac t ed fora r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat orypurpos e and/ or l a c k e d a r a t i o n a l b a s i s . Ho we v e r , we h a v e p r e v i o u s l yh e l d th a tth e ma n d a t o r ymi n i mu ms ati s s ue, w hi ch w er e partof the A nt i - D rug A bus e A ctof 1986, Pub. L . N o. 99- 570, 100 S tat . 3 2 0 7 , w ere n o t ena cted fo r an im p erm issi b le discrim inato ryp u rpo se a n d w ere4

s u p p o rt e d b ya ra tio n a l b a s is . U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr az i er , 9 8 1 F . 2 d 9 2 , 9 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). I r i zarr yal s o ar gues t hatC ongr es s ’ fai l ur e t o amend § 841’ s m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s offe nds equal pr ot ect i on beca us e C ongr es s has been made aw ar e of ( 1) the s i gni fi cantdi s par at e i m pactt hatt he cr ack/ coca i ne s ent enci ng di ffe r ence s have on defe ndant s of r aci al m i nor i t ygr oups and ( 2) r ece ntdat a thats ugges t s thatcr ack of fens es do notpos e a s i gni fi cant l ygr eat ert hr eatt o drug us er s ors oci etythan coc ai ne pow der o f f e n s e s . T her e i s s om e author i t yt o s uppor tthe not i on thatan equa l pr ot ect i on chal l enge m aybe vi abl e w her e l egi s l at i on w as notenac t ed foran i m perm i s s i bl e purpos e but C ongr es s s ubs equent l yr eaf fi r m ed thatl egi s l at i on i n t he fa ce of evi dence thati thad a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n a p ro te c te d g ro u p o r l a c k e d a ra tio n a l b a s is . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Then , 56 F. 3d 464, 468 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( C al abr es i , J . , concurr i ng) ( s ugges t i ng thatequal p ro te c tio n c h a lle n g e b a s e d o n c ra c k /c o c a in e d is p a ri ty m a ylie if C o n g re s s , “ th o u g h . . . m ade a w ar e of both t he dr amat i cal l ydi s par at e i m pactamong m i nor i t ygr oups of enh anced crack pen al t i es and o f t he li m i t ed ev i den ce supp ort i ng such en han ced p enalt i es, w e re n e v e rth e les s to a c t af f irm a tiv e ly ” to p re se rv e th o se p e n a lti e s); se e g e n e ra lly P ers. A dm ’ rof Mas s achus et t

s v. Feene

y , 4 4 2 U . S . 2 5 6 , 2 7 9 (19 7 9 ) (ho lding that d iscri m inato ry p u rpo se in v o lves situ ati o n s in w h ich g o v ern m en t “selec ted o r r eaf f i r m ed a part i cul ar cour s e of a ct i on atl eas ti n par tbeca us e of, notm er el yi n s pi t e of, i t s adver s e ef fec t s upon an iden ti fiab le gro u p ”) (q u o tat ion s o m itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ).5

A ss u m in g su c h a c laim is c o g n iza b le, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t C o n g re ss ’ f a ilu re to a m e n d § 8 4 1 w a s “ b e c a u se o f ” a ra c iallyd isc rim in a to ryo r o th e rw ise im p e rm iss ib le purpos e. I r i zarr yr el i es heavi l yon t he fi ndi ngs of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, w hi ch has d o c u m e n ted th e sig n if

ica n t im p a c t o f

th e c ra c k /co c a in e se n ten c in g d isp a rityo n m in o rity gr oups , ques t i oned C ongr es s ’ concl us i ons r egar di ng the r el at i ve s ever i t yof cr ack a nd c o c a in e o f

f e n se s, a n d re c o m m e n d e d (a n d u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, a d o p ted ) a re d u c tio n in th e c ra c k /c o c a in e d is p a ri ty. See U . S . S entenci ng C om m i ssi on , R epo rtt o the C on gress : C o c a in e a n d F e d e ra l S e n ten c in g P o licy6 -9 , 1 5 (2 0 0 7 ) (h e re a f ter “ 2 0 0 7 R e p o rt” ); U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l a p p . C , a m e n d . 7 0 6 (N o v . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). S ig n if ica n tly , h o w e v e r, th e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n h a s a lso f o u n d th a t ce rta in fo rm s o f a g g rav ati n g co n d u ct, su ch as th e u se o f w ea p o n s an d v iolen ce , are m o re c o m m o n in c ra c k o f

f e n se s th a n c o c a in e p o w d e r o f f e n se s; th a t cr a c k o f

f e n d e rs g e n e ra lly have mor e ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t or i es than coc ai ne pow deroffe nder s ; and thatthe r i s k of ad d ict ion m ayb e g rea ter fo r crac k than co ca ine p o w d er. 20 0 7 R ep o rt at31, 36, 44, 62; see al so K i m br ough v. U

ni t ed Stat es , - - - U . S. - - - - , 128 S. C t . 558, 568 ( 2007) ( “I n t he C o m m iss io n ' s v iew , so m e d if f e re n tial in th e q u a n tity -b a se d p e n a lti e s f o r th e tw o d ru g s is w a rra n ted b e c a u se c ra c k is m o re a d d ictiv e th a n p o w d e r, cr a c k o f f e n se s a re m o re lik e lyto in v o lv e w e a p o n s o r b o d ilyin ju ry , an d c ra c k d istrib u tio n is a ss o c iate d w ith h ig h e r le v e ls o f c ri m e.”) (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T hes e fi ndi ngs cl ear l ypr ovi de a r at i onal , non- di s cr i m i nat orybas i s i n s uppor tof6

th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s p ro v id e d in § 8 4 1 . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i m bl ey , 5 5 3 F .3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (re jec tin g e q u a l p ro tec tio n c h a llen g e to § 8 4 1 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . W

a tts , 5 5 3 F .3 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 4 -0 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 523 F .3 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 5 2 2 F . 3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 6 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (sam e); U

n itedS ta tes v . G a rc ia -C a rr a sq u illo , 483 F. 3d 124, 134 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) (sam e). T hus , not w i t hs t andi ng w hatm aybe a di s par at e i m pacton m i nor i t ygr oups res ult i ng from § 8 41 ’s m and at orym i nim um sent ences, C on gress ’ r et enti on of those m a n d a to rym in im u m s d o e s n o t o f f e n d th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n c o m p o n e n t o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. See Fr az i er , 981 F. 2d at95 ( “Even cons ci ous aw ar enes s on t he partof the l egi s l atur e thatt he l aw w i l l have a r aci al l ydi s par at e i m pactdoes noti nval i dat e an ot herw i s e val i d l aw , s o l ong as t hataw ar enes s pl ay ed no ca us al r ol e i n t he pas s age of t he sta tu te.” ); see al

so W a sh in g to n v . D a v is , 4 2 6 U .S . 2 2 9 , 2 4 2 (1 9 7 6 ) (“ [ W ]e h a v e n o t h e ld t hata l aw , neutr al on i t s fac e and s ervi ng ends ot herw i s e w i t hi n t he pow erof governm ent to p u rsu e , is in v a lid u n d e r th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se sim p lyb e c a u se it m a ya f f e c t a g re a te r p ro p o rt io n o f

o n e ra c e th a n o f

a n o th e r.” ). III . Fort he above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entand s ent ence .