2010 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 7-23-2010 

# U SA v . Gle nn Y oung 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 nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2068

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . 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 . Gle nn Y oun g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 901. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/901

### - 1- 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 os . 09- 2068, 09- 3187

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GL E NN YOU NG, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 08- cr - 00262) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

M ay18, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: G l enn Y oung appea l s hi s s ent ence fol l ow i ng a benc h t r i al aft erw hi ch he w as found gui l t yof cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e l es s t han 100 gr ams of

### Whi l e we r e vi e w adi s tri c t c ourt ’ s i nt e r

pr e t at i on of the Se nt e nc i ng Gui de l i ne s de 1 

### n o v o , w e rev iewth e co urt’s u ltim ate senten cin g d etermin atio nf o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n . See Unite d S tate s v. Mat eo, 560 F.3d15 2, 15 4 (20 09 ). “[W]e willaffirm [a distri ct c o urt ’ s s e nt e n c e ] un l e s s n o r e a s o n ab l e s e nt e n c i n g c o urt w o u l dh av e i mp o s e dth e s ame se ntenceonthat

partic ular

defend ant for the r ea sons the dis tric t c ourt prov ided.”Un it ed S tates v . T o mk o , 5 6 2 F .3 d5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ).

- 2- her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 846. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e di s cus s t he fa ct s onl yt o t he ext ent nece s s aryforr es ol ut i on of the i s s ue on appe al . T he cha r ge aga i ns tY oung s t emm ed fr om a y ear - l ong i nves t i gat i on byt he D E A i nt o drug t r aff i cki ng i n t he Pi t t s bur gh ar ea i nvol vi ng her oi n packa ged i n s t amp bags l abel ed “Bi g D addy . ” O n M ar ch 13, 2008, r es pondi ng t o a t i p t hatan i ndi vi dual w as s el l i ng drugs fr om hi s cari n t he parki ng l otof a M cD onal ds , H anoverT ow ns hi p Pol i ce O ffi cerM ark St efa now i cz s t opped the ca raft er obs er vi ng s ever al t r aff

i c vi ol at i ons . Y oung, t he dr i verof the vehi cl e, admi t t ed t o s el l i ng cr ack i n t he pas tand cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of hi s apart m ent . Y oung’ s apart m entw as s ubs equent l ys ear ched, and her oi n w ei ghi ng 11. 2 gr ams and othernar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng p a ra p h e rn a lia , in c lu d in g a t le a s t o n e s ta m p b a g la b e le d “ B ig D a d d y ,” w a s re c o v e re d . Y oung w as char ged i n a one- counti ndi ctm entw i t h cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s t r i but e l es s t han 100 gr ams of her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 846.

### - 3-

A fter a b en ch tr ial , Y o u n g w as f o u n d g u il ty . A t sen tenc ing the D istri ct C o u rt combi ned the w ei ghtof the drugs r ecove r ed fr om Y oung’ s hom e w i t h t he her oi n s ei zed fr om a co- cons pi r at or , r es ul t i ng i n a bas e off ens e l evel of 16. B eca us e Pr obat i on concl uded thatY oung w as a ca r eeroffe nderhi s bas e off ens e l evel i ncr eas ed t o 34, r es ul t i ng i n a G ui del i ne r ange of 262 t o 327 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our ts ent ence d Y oung t o a 180- m ont h t er m of i ncar cer at i on. H e appe al s t hi s s ent ence . II. A. Y o u n g ’s p rim a ryc o n ten tio n o n a p p e a l is th a t h is 1 8 0 m o n th s p riso n se n ten c e is u n rea so n ab le “a fter the tr ial co u rtco n clud ed that ap p ell an t’ s ca ree r of fe n d er status o v errepr esent ed h i s cr i m i nal hi st ory . ” A pp el l ant’ s B ri ef at13 . S pecifi cal l y , he seek s a dow nw ar d departur e orvar i ance pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5H 1. 6, bas ed on fa m i l i al ci r cumst ance s . Y oung ar gued thathi s s ent ence s houl d be l ow erbeca us e hi s daught er w o u ld b e p la c e d in f

o s te r c a re f

o r t h e d u ra tio n o f

h is a n d h is w if

e ’s p ri s o n s e n te n c e s . N e x t, he a rg u e s th a t h is o f f e n se lev e l an d c rim in a l h isto rysc o re w o rk e d to su b sta n tially over - r epr es entt he s er i ous nes s of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . W hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed a var i ance bas ed l ar gel yon t hi s ar gum entdur i ng s ent enci ng, Y oung cont ends t hata l ow er s e n te n c e w o u ld b e tte r r e f le c t th e s e ri o u s n e s s a n d re m o te n e s s o f h is p re v io u s c o n v ic tio n s . Fi nal l y , Y oung cont es t s t he w ei ghtof the drugs t o be cons i der ed fors ent enci ng purpos es beca us e a s ubs t ant i al quant i t yw as di s cover ed af t ert he i ndi ctm entexpi r ed. G i ven the “de

### - 4-

m in im is” a m o u n t o f

h e ro in d isc o v e re d in h is a p a rtm e n t b u t n o t ch a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, he ar gues t hata 180 mont h pr i s on s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. B. Y o u n g co n tend s the D istri ct C o u rterred w h en itd en ied h is m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard departur e orvar i ance pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5H 1. 6. T o avoi d unfai rout comes, w e have h e ld th a t d e p a rtu re s b a se d o n f a m ili a l circ u m sta n c e s s h o u ld o n lyb e g ra n ted in e x tr a o rd in a ry c a s e s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . S w e e tin g , 2 1 3 F .3 d 9 5 , 1 0 0 -0 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he pl ace m entof a c hi l d i n fos t ercar e fort he poordeci s i ons of the par ent s , t hough t r agi c, i s notextr aor di nary . See i d. at100- 02. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ynot ed that “thi s s i tuat i on i s no di ffe r entt han thatof anycr i m i nal defe ndantfac i ng i ncar cer at i on and d o es n o t call fo r a low er se n tenc e.” (A p p . 4 1 b ) W e h av e h eld th at a d istri ct co u rt ’s p u rpo rt ed fa il u re to g ive a d eq u ate w eigh t t o p arti cu lar m it igating fa ctors d o es n o t r en d er a s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . U n ite d S ta te s v . L e s s n e r, 4 9 8 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). R egardl ess, becau se the D i stri ctC ou rtun derst oo d it s l egal aut ho ri t yt o d epart , bu tcho se nott o, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t s deci s i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. W at s on, 482 F. 3d 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W h il e the C o u rtref

u sed to g ran t a fo rm al de p arture b ase d o n the o v errep rese n tat ion o f Y o u n g ’s prior c ri m inal rec o rd, th e C o u rtlarge lyac ce p ted Y o u n g ’sW e paus e t o r eaf fi r m t hatdi s t r i ctcour t s ar e obl i gat ed t o expr es s l yrul e on a 2 d e p a rt u re m o tio n . See e . g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Lof

i nk , 564 F. 3d 222, 237- 38 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( not i ng t hata di s t r i ctcour t“mustfor m al l yrul e on the mot i ons of both par t i es and s t at e on th e re c o rd w h e th e r t h e ya re g ra n tin g a d e p a rt u re ” ). 

### Wh ile th e D istrict C o urt ref erredto it s mod ific ation o f the se ntenceas a both a vari anceand a do wnward departure , we are concerned that

it did n ot fo rm al ly

st at e on the re cord that

it had d enie d Y oung ’s de part ur e m ot i on. Al though c ont e xt c onfi rm s that

the Court

de ni e d Young’ s m ot i on for a depart ure andinst ea d g ranted a variance, (App . 39b ), and w hilewe ar e c on fident that th e D istric t C o u rt u n d e rsto o d its leg a l au th o rityto g ra n t a d e p a rtu re , b u t in ste a d c h o se to gr anta var i ance bas ed on the § 3553( a) fac t or s , fai l ur e t o rul e on the depa r tur e mot i on w as i n err or. Iti s unn ecessaryt o rem and t his case t o the D i stri ctC ou rt , ho w ever, becau se this no n -co n sti tuti o n al error w as h arm less sinc e itd id n o t “af fe ct t h e d istri ct co u rt ’s s el ect i on of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Br o wn , 5 7 8 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 6 -27 (3d C ir . 2009) . H ad the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Y oung’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e bas ed on an over s t at ed cr i m i nal hi s t or y , Y oung’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw oul d have be en r educe d byonl yone l evel , r es ul t i ng i n a G ui del i ne r ange of 235- 293 m ont hs im p ri s o n m e n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 58 5 F . 3d 13 8, 14 4-45 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). B ecause t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d Y oung t o 180 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , w el l bel ow t hatr ange, i t s fai l ur e t o rul e on Y oung’ s departur e mot i on undoubt edl ydi d noteff ectt he s ent ence im p o s e d .



### - 5- argum ents con cerni ng t he les s ser i ou s nature and rem oteness of h i s pri or conv i ct i on s. 2 T h e C o u rtp rop erlyex erc ised it s d iscreti o n b yd eterm ining that the G u idelines o v err epr es ent ed the s er i ous nes s of Y oung’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons . T hi s det erm i nat i on for m ed the f o u n d a tio n o f

th e C o u rt’s d e c isio n to v a ryth e se n ten c e f ro m th e G u id e lin e ra n g e . W h ile Y oung w i s hed foran eve n gr eat ervar i ance bas ed on thes e cons i der at i ons , w e ca nnots ay th a t “ 

### no r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc i ng c ourt woul d have i m

pos e d the s am e s e nt e nc e . . . for the r e a s ons the di s tri c t

c ourt pr ovi de d. ” Tomko, 562 F. 3d at 567. F in a lly , the C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e h e ro in f o u n d in Y o u n g ’s a p a rtm e n t, t hough notchar ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , i s admi s s i bl e t o pr ove the cons pi r acy . See U ni t ed

### Young a l s o fi l e d apr o s e bri e f c ha l l e ngi ng the Di s tri c t Court ’ s Apri l9, 2009 3 

### Order denying h is pre- tria l motions to supp re ss . Sincethe Dis tric t Court ’s ju dg m ent was no t final , we werewithout juris diction to revie w that a pp ea l. Af

te r the criminal ju dg m ent a gainst

Yo un g b ec am e final , how ever , we c om bined Y oung ’s pro se a

pp ea l with his c ounsel ed chal le ng e t o the re as on able ness of his s ente nce, and p ursuant t o T hird Ci r . L. A. R. 27. 8, r e fe rr e d the pr o s e m ot i on t o hi s att orne y . Young, howe ve r , di d not ad dress th e Ap ril 9 O rd er inh is b rief , an dw e w ill th eref

o re d ismiss ap p eal 0 9 -2 0 6 8 . th



### - 6- St at es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 217 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( concl udi ng t hat“R ul e 404( b) , w hi ch p rosc ri b es th e a d m issi o n o f e v iden ce o f o ther c ri m es w h en o ff ere d to p rov e b ad ch ara cter, do es not applyt o ev i den ce of un charged off

enses com m i t t ed b ya def end ant w hen t ho se act s ar e i nt r i ns i c t o t he pr oof of the cha r ged off ens e. ”) . I n addi t i on t o t he 11. 2 gr ams of her oi n found atY oung’ s apart m ent , l aw enfor cemental s o found atl eas tone bag l abel ed “B i g D addy . ” The drugs and par aphernal i a di s cover ed i n t he s ear ch r epr es ent ed key e v id e n c e c o n f

irm in g th e e x iste n c e o f

a c o n sp ira c y , an d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly cons i der ed thi s dur i ng s ent enci ng. I n tur n, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yi m pos ed a 180 m ont h s ent ence notbas ed on 1. 43 gr ams of her oi n, buton t he fa rm or e s ubs t ant i al amount of 1 2. 63 gram s. 3 III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.