2008 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 8-5-2008 

# U SA v . Reid 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 . 07-3762

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Reid " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 710. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/710NOT 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. 07- 3762

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO HAN R E I D, 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00205) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

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

J ul y2, 2008 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . D efe ndantR ohan R ei d vi ol at ed the gene r al condi t i ons of hi s tw o- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d R ei d t o 12 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on fort he2

v i o l a t i o n s . Re i d a p p e a l s f r o m th e j u d g me n to f

s e n t e n c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. O n M arch 8, 20 05 , R ei d w as sent enced bythe D i stri ctC ou rtt o 2 7 m on t hs’ in c a rc e ra tio n a n d tw o y e a rs’ su p e rv ise d re lea se f o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m or e than fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e. R ei d’ s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e comm ence d on M ar ch 24, 2006. I n N ovember2006, R ei d w as char ged w i t h t w o s epar at e count s of d riv in g u n d e r th e in f

lu e n c e . O n Ja n u a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , R e id w a s a rre ste d f o r p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e. A ta hea r i ng on t he G overnm ent ’ s pet i t i on t o r evoke hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, R ei d admi t t ed gui l tt o t he above vi ol at i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe appl i cabl e Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange fort he s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i ons w as 12 t o 18 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on. Fol l ow i ng rev o ca ti o n o f su p erv ised release , the D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed R eid to the a d v isory G ui del i nes m i ni m um of 12 m ont hs t o be s erved cons ecut i vel yt o t he 63- m ont h s ent ence he w as then s ervi ng fora s epar at e fe der al drug offe ns e. D u rin g th e h e a rin g , R e id ’s c o u n se l u rg e d th e D istric t C o u rt to a p p lyh is 1 2 -m o n th sen tenc e c o n cu rren tl yto h is 63 -m o n th se n tenc e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtp rom p ted R eid’s3

couns el t o expl ai n t he r at i onal e forappl y i ng the s ent ence concurr ent l y . R ei d’ s couns el not ed thatR ei d had part i ci pat ed i n s ubs t ance abus e pr ogr ams atthe det ent i on cent erand i n fi l m i ng a ca bl e t el evi s i on vi deo thatencour aged y oung i ndi vi dual s t o avoi d gang act i vi ty . R ei d’ s couns el nextt es t i fi ed t o a pos i t i ve cha nge i n R ei d’ s demeanorand char act er . R ei d’ s couns el al s o s ugges t ed thatR ei d m ayhave i nt ent i onal l yvi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e i n or dert o s eek the s afe t yof cus t ody , aft erhavi ng been the t ar getof one orm or e vi ol entat t acks s i nce hi s i ni t i al r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen as ked forthe G overnm ent ’ s r es pons e. T he G overnm ent re c o m m e n d e d a c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e , n o tin g th a t R e id c o m m itt e d th re e v io latio n s w ith in one y earof comm enci ng s upervi s ed r el eas e and thatthe D i s t r i ctC our thad s ent ence d R ei d bel ow t he bot t om of the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange f orhi s i ni t i al offe ns e. I n expl ai ni ng i t s deci s i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thati thad gi ven R ei d a “br eak” o n h is o rig in a l se n ten c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t R e id h a d d e m o n stra ted a n in a b ili ty to a d ju st to su p e rv ise d re lea se , n o tin g th a t h e h a d g o tten in to tro u b le s h o rtlya f ter h is r el eas e and i n a “maj orw ay ” w i t h r es pectt o hi s drug vi ol at i on. T her eaf t erthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt sta ted th a t itb e liev e d it “a p p ro p ria te” to a p p lyR e id ’s s e n ten c e c o n se c u tiv e ly , w h ile acknow l edgi ng t hatR ei d’ s couns el ’ s comm ent s w er e “ve r yas tut e and ve r yi ns i ght ful . ” T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed that“I don’ tthi nk I have a nychoi ce f r ankl ybutt o s ent ence y ou cons ecut i vel y . ” El s ew her e, t he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thati tappl i ed R ei d’ s s ent ence c o n se c u tiv e lyb e c a u se h e c o m m itt e d th e sa m e o f f e n se f o r w h ich h e w a s o rig in a lly4

i ncar cer at ed, s t at i ng t hat“[t ] hat ’ s w hyI ’ m m aki ng i tcons ecut i ve, that ’ s the r eas on, and I th in k it’s th e o n lyth in g th a t m a k e s s e n se .” T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, cons i der i ng t he G ui del i nes and “the fa ct or s cont ai ned i n T i t l e 18, U . S. C . , Sect i on 3 5 5 3 (a)[,] . . . this [is] an a p p rop ri ate a n d rea so n ab le sen tenc e.” T h e D istri ct C o u rt con cl ud ed b ysent encing R ei d to the ad vis oryG uidel i nes m i nim um of 1 2 m on t hs’ i ncar cer at i on. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3742( a) . W e r evi ew s ent ence s i m pos ed forvi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e for re a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r t h e s ta tu to ry se n te n c in g f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 4 7 8 F .3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). O u r re v iew o f se n ten c e s is “hi ghl ydefe r ent i al , ” and the cha l l engi ng par t ybear s the bur den of pr oof i n demonstr at i ng u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . I

d. at543. III . R ei d appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o appl yhi s 12- m onth s ent ence for vi ol at i ng the gene r al t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e cons ecut i vel y , r atherthan concurr ent l y , t o a s ent ence he i s curr ent l ys ervi ng. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 847 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e hel d t hata di s t r i ctcour thad di s cr et i on t o i m pos e cons ecut i ve s e n t e n c e s u p o n r e v o c a t i o n o f c o n c u r r e n tt e r ms o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e b a s e d u p o n th e s a me5

v io la tio n c o n d u c t. I

d. at 85 2 . A fo rt iori , p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 4 (a), a d istri ct co u rt has the di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence fora vi ol at i on, w hi ch i s cons ecut i ve t o an u n d is c h a rg e d te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t f

o r s o m e e n tir e ly se p a ra te c o n v ic te d o f f e n s e . See als o U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 3( f) ( advi s i ng i m pos i t i on of s ent ence fors upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on to ru n co n sec u ti v e to a n ysen tenc e d ef en d an t i s the n serv ing ). N onethel es s , R ei d chal l enges the r eas onabl enes s of hi s cons ecut i ve s ent ence on th re e g ro u n d s. F irst, h e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d im p e rm iss ib le f a c to rs in im p o sin g its se n ten c e . S p e c if ica lly , h e a rg u e s th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e )(3 ) p re v e n ts c o u rts thatar e i m pos i ng s ent ence s fors upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i ons fr om cons i der i ng fac t or s s et for th i n § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( pert ai ni ng t o t he puni t i ve purpos es of s ent enci ng) and § 3553( a) ( 3) ( pert ai ni ng t o t he “ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e”) . R ei d not es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence aft ervoi ci ng i t s cons i der at i on of the “s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , ” w i t houtthe nec es s aryqual i fi cat i on purpor t edl yr equi r ed by§ 3583( e) ( 3) . W i t houtdeci di ng w hether§ 3583( e) ( 3) forbi ds c o n s id e ra tio n o f

§ 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 )( A ), ( 3 ) a s a m a tte r o f la w , s ee Bungar , 478 F. 3d at543 n. 2, w e f in d n o in d ica tio n in th e re c o rd th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d a n im p e rm iss ib le fac t ori n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on. W hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl i ci t l ys t at e w hi ch § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors itco n side red in co n tr ad ist inction w ith w h ich o n es itd id n o t, “[ t] h ere are n o m ag ic w o rds th at a d istri ct j u d g e m u st i n v o k e w h en sen tenc ing , as lo n g as th e re co rd s how s t hatt he courtcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and anys ent enci ng gr ounds6

pr oper l yr ai s ed byt he part i es w hi ch have r ecogni zed l egal m er i tand fa ctual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D r agon , 471 F. 3d 501, 505 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). R eid, th ere fo re, r ea d s too m u ch into the D istri ct C o u rt ’s re f e re n c e to § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a s n e c e ss a rilyre v e a lin g th a t itc o n sid e re d a n yp u rp o rte d ly forbi dd en fa ct ors. R ei d nextar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yi m pos ed a c ons ecut i ve sen tenc e u n d er the m ist ak en b eli ef that itw as c o m p ell ed to d o so , cit ing a so li tary comm entthat“I don’ tt hi nk I have a nychoi ce f r ankl ybutt o s ent ence y ou cons ecut i vel y . ” T he r ecor d cl ear l yi ndi cat es , how ever , thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tgave “ m eani ngful c o n s id e ra tio n ” to th e re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in re a c h in g its c o n c lu s io n . B ungar , 478 F . 3 d at 54 3 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtn o ted its l en ienc yo n R eid’s initi al sen tenc e, R eid’s b re a c h o f

tru st, a n d th e n u m b e r a n d f re q u e n c yo f

v io latio n s, c o n sid e ra tio n s th a t w o u ld have be en s uper fl uous had the D i s t r i ctC our tbel i eved thati tw as compel l ed t o i m pos e a cons ecut i ve s ent ence . F i nall y , R ei d argue s that the D i stri ctC ou rti m properl yapp l i ed a “reasona bleness ” s t andar d i n det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence , on t he theorythatr eas onabl enes s can onl ybe an a ppel l at e s t andar d. T hi s ar gum enti s unavai l i ng. N everhave w e forbi dden a d istric t co u rt f

ro m c h a ra c ter izin g its o w n se n ten c e a s re a so n a b le u n d e r so m e (in c o rre c t) n o tio n th a t a p p e lla te c o u rt s h a v e a m o n o p o ly o v e r u s in g th e w o rd “ re a s o n a b le .”7 I V. F o r th e f o rg o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.