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 5-11-2009 

# U SA v . Alex H ethe ringt on 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 . 08-2564

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 authori 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 . Alex H e the rin gt on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1382. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1382NOT 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- 2564

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AL E X HE T HE RI NGT ON, 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00596- 1) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 23, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , S L O V IT E R a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2009 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A lex H e th e rin g to n p lea d e d g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 for w hi ch he w as s ent ence d t o 312 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l , H ether i ngt on ar gues2

thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notgi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o hi s ext ens i ve coope r at i on as a fa ct orw arr ant i ng a var i ance and as a r es ul thi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. Forthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th 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 yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. T h e c o n v ictio n in th is c a se ste m s f ro m H e th e rin g to n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in a lar g e -sc a le drug tr aff

i cki ng or gani zat i on bas ed i n M exi co. O n February27, 2007, H ether i ngt on w as arr es t ed i n a parki ng l oti n C ar l s t adt , N ew J er s eyw hi l e he w as i n the pr oces s of tr a n s f e rr i n g 2 1 2 k i l o g r a ms o f “ s h a m” c o c a i n e f

r o m a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r ’ s v e h i c l e t o h i s o wn vehi cl e ( unbeknow ns tt o hi m , l aw enfor cementoffi cer s had di s cover ed the ac tual coca i ne a n d re p la c e d it w ith a c o c a in e -l ik e s u b s ta n c e a s p a rt o f a c o n tr o lle d d e liv e ry). H ether i ngt on r ece i ved Mi r anda w a rn in g s u p o n a rre st b u t in d ica ted h is w ill in g n e ss to cooper at e. I n t he day s fol l ow i ng hi s arr es t , H ether i ngt on m ade numer ous m oni t or ed phone ca l l s i n an uns ucce s s ful eff or tt o obt ai n the thr ee mi l l i on dol l ar s w hi ch cons t i tut ed h is p a ym e n t f

o r d e liv e ry o f

th e c o c a in e s o th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t c o u ld s e iz e th e m o n e y . A s a r es ul tof otherm oni t or ed ca l l s , H ether i ngt on hel ped l aw enfor cementoffi cer s s ei ze six ty -f o u r p o u n d s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e , w h ich led to th e a rre st o f tw o o th e r in d iv id u a ls w ho w or ked w i th H ether i ngt on.3

O n Ja n u a ry2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , p u rsu a n t to a w ritten a g re e m e n t, H e th e rin g to n p lea d e d g u ilty to a o n e -c o u n t su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t w h ich c h a rg e d h im w ith c o n sp irin g w ith o th e rs to d istri b u te an d p o sses s w ith inten t t o d istri b u te five k il o g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine c o n tr ary t o 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) and i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. I n the pl ea agreem ent, H et heri ng t on st i pu l at ed thatthe am ou nt of cocaine i nv olved i n h i s offen se w as 212 ki l ogr ams. H ether i ngt on’ s bas e off ens e l evel of thi r ty - ei ghtw as adj us t ed upw ar ds fourl evel s beca us e of hi s l eade r s hi p r ol e i n the off ens e and w as r educe d thr ee l evel s beca us e of hi s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , thus r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of thi r ty - ni ne. T hi s offe ns e l evel , combi ned w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t oryi n cat egoryI , y i el ded a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f

2 6 2 to 3 2 7 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m e n t. A t sen tenc ing o n M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , the G o v ern m en t did n o t m o v e f o r a d ep arture p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 b e c a u se it b e liev e d H e th e rin g to n w a s n o t co m p lete ly truthful and forthr i ghtabouthi s cr i m i nal act i vi t i es , and H ether i ngt on di d notchal l enge the G overnm ent ’ s deci s i on nott o r eques ta dow nw ar d departur e. H ether i ngt on di d ar gue thata var i ance fr om the G ui del i nes r ange w as w arr ant ed i n l i ghtof hi s cooper at i on as w el l as hi s w or k as a mi s s i onaryfortw o y ear s i n H ondur as . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d H ether i ngt on t o 312 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100. H ether i ngt on t i m el yappea l ed hi s j udgm entof s ent ence .4 II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n to f s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. W e r evi ew s ent ence s forboth pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d pur s uantt o G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). III . H ether i ngt on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notgi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o hi s “ext ens i ve coope r at i on” w i th the G overnm entas a mi t i gat i ng fac t orunder18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ). H e th e rin g to n c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted h is a rg u m e n ts f o r a v a ria n c e o n th e b a sis o f h is c o o p e ra tio n b e c a u se o f th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d e c isio n n o t to r eques ta dow nw ar d departur e underU . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1. T he G overnm entr es ponds that the D i s tr i ctC our tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tcons i der ed and r ej ect ed the var i ance ar gum ent s beca us e H ether i ngt on’ s cooper at i on w as not“out s i de of the mai ns tr eam of c o o p e ra tio n .” O u r p o st- B ookerpr ece denti ns truct s di s tr i ctcourt s t o fol l ow a thr ee- s t ep s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h e n t a i l s c a l c u l a t i n g a d e f e n d a n t ’ s G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e p r e c i s e l y, form al l yrul i ng on anydepartur e mot i ons , and exe r ci s i ng di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H e th e rin g to n ’s c h a llen g e to th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f h is v a ria n c e a rg u m e n ts5

w ith in the fra m ew o rk o f § 3 5 5 3 (a) p ertains o n lyto the thir d step u n d er G unt er . W e have expl ai ned that“[w ] hi l e a l i s t i ng of fa ct or s m aynot , al one, be s uffi ci entt o demonstr at e the nece s s arycons i der at i on of r el evantfac t or s , ” s uch cons i der at i on can be r efl ect ed fr om “the r ecor d as a w hol e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l

f ano , 5 0 3 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A l ong thes e l i nes , a di s tr i ctcourtneed not“di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs if th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th e c o u rt to o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in s ent enci ng. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e expe ctt he r ecor d t o r efl ecta di s tr i ctcourt ’ s “r ecogni t i on of, and r es pons e t o, the part i es ’ nonfr i vol ous ar gum ent s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H er e, i n r es pons e t o H ether i ngt on’ s ar gum ent s thatthe ext entof hi s cooper at i on w a rra n ted v a ry in g h is s e n ten c e , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted : “I c o n sid e r w h a tev e r y o u c laim h e h a s d o n e b yw a yo f

c o o p e ra tio n a s p a rt o f

a g e n e ra l co n ste llatio n o f w h a t m a k e s th is per s on befor e me, w hatm akes A l ex H ether i ngt on. ” Thi s s t at ementr efl ect s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed H ether i ngt on’ s cooper at i on as partof hi s over al l hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs . A l s o, i n r es pons e t o H ether i ngt on’ s i nqui ryas t o w hetherthe D i s tr i ct C o u rtw as a cc ep ti n g h is co o p era ti o n “a s a 3 5 5 3 co n side rati o n , ” the D istri ct C o u rt expl ai ned: “I am consi der i ng thi s cons i der at i on and not e thathe has been gi ven cr edi tfor it i n th e a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty .” W h e n H e th e rin g to n c o n tin u e d to p re ss h is cooper at i on ar gum entand cha r act er i zed the “s cope of the coope r at i on” as6

“extr aor di nary , ” the D i s tr i ctC our tr epl i ed that“[i ] tdoes n’ tt ake i toutof the mai ns tr eam o f c o o p e ra tio n ” a n d it “ f

a lls s h o rt .” T h ere fo re, th e re co rd is clea r th at th e D istri ct C o u rtd id co n side r H ethe ri n g ton ’s ar gum ent s thathe des erved a va r i ance beca us e of hi s cooper at i on butnonethel es s w as u n p ersu ad ed b ythes e a rgu m en ts. B ec au se th e re co rd re v ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n side rati o n o f H ethe ri n g ton ’s arg u m en ts fo r a v arian ce in li g h t of the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a s w e ll as a n e x p lan a tio n o f w h yth e D istric t C o u rt c h o se n o t to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to v a ry h is s e n te n c e , w e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n re a s o n a b le . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (ex p lai n ing that the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c isio n n o t to g iv e th e d e f e n d a n t’s “ m iti g a tin g f

a c to rs th e w e ig h t th a t [ th e d e f e n d a n t] co n tend s the yd ese rve d o es n o t r en d er [ the] se n tenc e u n rea so n ab le”). I V. F o r th e f o re g 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.