2007 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
8-15-2007 

# U SA v . R i ve r a 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 n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1321

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 no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 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 Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t 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 . R ive r a" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 586. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/586NOT 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. 06- 1321
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v.
DA NI EL RI VER A, a / k / a DA VI D A LVER EZ, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 02- cr - 00553- 2) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Pet r es e B
. T ucker
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J ul y13, 2007
B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A L D I SE R T and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t15, 2007)

OP I NI ON2

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: D ani el R i ver a appe al s hi s s ent ence of 96 m o n ths i m pr i s onm ent . T he onl yi s s ue on
a p p e a l i s t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h i s s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . BA CKGROUND O n F e b ru a ry 5 , 2 0 0 3 , R iv e ra p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te
cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. §§ 841 and 846, t hr ee c ount s of ai di ng and abe t t i ng t he di s t r i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 2 and 21 U
. S. C
. § 841, and one countof pos s es s i on of cr ack coca i ne w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841. R i ver a w as s e n t e n c e d o n J u l y1 5 , 2 0 0 3 t o 9 6 mon t h s i mpr i s o n me n t , 5 y e a r s o f s u p e r v i s ed
r el eas e, a $1, 000 fi ne, and a $500 s peci al as s es s m ent . R i ver a t i m el y appea l ed. W e vac at ed R i ver a’ s s ent ence and r emanded forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Bo o ker , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 2 (2 0 0 5 ). U nit ed S t ates v. R i vera , 1 2 5 F ed
. A p p x . 4 5 1 , 4 5 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). A tr es ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet er m i ned t hat t he G ui del i ne r ange w as 87 t o 108
m ont h s (ba sed upon a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 29 and c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryI ) , t o w hi ch
couns el forR i ver a and the governm entagr eed. T he D i s t r i ct C our t and t he par t i es al s o agr eed that U
. S
. S
. G
. § 5 C 1
. 2 (t h e so -ca ll ed “sa fe tyv alve ” p rov isi o n ) ap p li ed a n d thu s the co u rt coul d i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow t he s t atut or ym inim um of 10 y ear s i m pr i s onm ent . A tt he
r es ent enc i n g h e a r i n g , Ri v e r a a r g u e d , a mon g o t h e rt h i n g s , t h a ta l o wers e n t e n c e was appr opr i at e i n l i ght of hi s exempl ary behavi ori n pr i s on s i nce the fi r s ts ent enci ng, as w el l as h is pe n d ing d ep o rt ati o n at t h e e n d o f h is prison term . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n side red R ivera ’sT h o se fa ctors i n clud e: (1) th e na ture an d circu m stan ce s o f th e o ff en se, an d the h ist o ry 1 and cha r act er i s t i cs of t he def endant ; ( 2) t he need for t he s ent ence i m pos ed t o: ( A ) r efl ectt he s e r i o u s n e s s o f

t h e o ff e ns e , pr o mo t e r e s p e c tf o rt h e l a w, a n d p r o v i d e j u s tp u n i s h me n t ; ( B) det ercr i m i nal conduct ; ( C ) pr ot ect t he publ i c; and ( D ) pr ovi de tr ai ni ng and tr eatm entfort he de f e n d a n t ; ( 3 ) t h e k i n d s o f s e n t e n c e s a v a i l a b l e ; ( 4 ) t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e u n d e rt he G ui del i nes ; ( 5) per t i nentpol i cys t at ement s ; ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among si m i l ardefe ndant s ; and ( 7) t he nee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on. 3 ar gum ent s for l eni ency , as w el l as t he appl i cabl e 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) fac t or s , and s ent ence d R i ver a t o t he s ame se nt ence as befor e. R i ver a t i m el yappea l ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on under 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A ft erB ooker , w e revi e w a se n ten c e f o r “ re a so n a b len e ss ” in re f e re n c e to th e a p p lica b le § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. U

n it ed St at es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c); 1 Uni t e d S t a t e s v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. R eas onabl enes s r evi ew
es s ent i al l ycal l s upon us t o “as k[] w h ethe r th e tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. ” R i t a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S
. C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 (20 0 7 ). A p p e lla n ts b e a r th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . C oo per, 437 F. 3d at 332. T he s t andar d of r evi ew i s “def er ent i al
. ” I

d. a t 3 3 0 . A se n ten c e w ith in th e c o rre c tly cal culated G ui del i ne r ange i s notaut om at i cal l yr eas onabl e, buti s m or e l i kel yt o be
re a s o n a b le th a n o n e o u ts id e th e ra n g e . I d. at331. D istri ct co u rt s fo ll o w a thre e-step p roc ess in im p o sing sen tenc es a fter B ooker :W e ar e tr oubl ed byt he poor q u ali ty o f R ivera ’ s br i ef, w hi ch es s ent i al l ycons i s t s of a 2 s i ngl e par agr aph of pe r funct or yand hi ghl yunper s uas ive ar gum entt hatfai l s t o r ai s e the pot ent i al l ycol or abl e ar gum ent s m ade by R i ver a, pr o s e, dur i ng s ent enci ng and r es ent enci ng. T h is is n o t th e f

irst tim e w e h a v e n o ted o u r d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith a p p o in ted c o u n se l’s w o rk in th is c a s e . See R i vera , 125 Fed. A ppx. at 452 n. 1 ( “W e not e, how ever , s om e di s s at i s fac t i on w i t h t he fa ctt hatt he A nd ers br i ef f ai l ed t o even a cknow l edg e the U
. S. S. G § 3B 1. 2 i s s ue, w hi ch w as cl ear l y i m por t ant at s ent enci ng and w hi ch for m ed the bas i s fort he i nfor m al br i ef s ubm i t t ed byA ppel l antaft ert he A nd ers br i ef w as fi l ed. ”) O urconce r n i s ampl i fi ed byt he fac tt hatR i ver a, a ci t i zen of t he D om i ni can R epubl i c, does not s peak orunder s t and Engl i s h, as evi den ced b yhis use of a t ransl at or duri ng t he sentenci ng proceed i ng s.

4 ( 1) C o u rt s m us tcont i nue t o cal cul at e a de fenda nt ’ s G ui del i nes s ent ence pr eci s el yas t heyw oul d have be for e B ooker
. ( 2) I n doi ng so , they m us tfor m al l yrul e on the mot i ons of bot h par t i es and s t at e on t he r ec o r d w hethert heyar e gr ant i ng a depa r tur e and how t hat departur e af

fec t s t he G ui del i nes cal cul at ion , and t ake i nt o acc ountour C i r cui t ’ s pr e- B ookercas e l aw , w hi ch cont i nues t o have a dvi s or yfor ce. ( 3) Fi nal l y , t heyar e r equi r ed t o ex erc is e thei rdi s cr et i on bycons i der i ng t he r el evant § 3553( a) fac t or s , i n s et t i ng t he s ent ence t heyi m pos e r egar dl es s [of] w hetheri tvari es fr om t he sentence calcul at ed u nd er the G uidel i nes. U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F
. 3 d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons , quot at i on
m ark s, an d b rac k ets o m itted). I n t hi s cas e, t he part i es agr ee t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t cal cul at ed t he G ui del i ne r ange a nd appl i ed the “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi s i on corr ect l y . R i ver a di d notm ake a nym ot i ons for do w nw ard dep arture. R i vera’ s sole argum ent w i t h regar d t o un reas on ableness i s as fol l ow s: “I n gi vi ng M r . R i ver a t he exa cts ame se nt ence t hat s he had gi ven hi m befor e, J udge Tucker fai l ed t o t ake i nt o acc ount hi s exempl aryr ecor d w hi l e i ncar cer at ed and ther efor e i m pos ed an
unr eas onabl e s ent ence . ” E s s ent i al l y , R i ver a ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t fai l ed t o cons i der 2T he governm entl at err emi nded the D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence 3 w as actual l y10 y ear s , not20. 5 hi s hi s t or y and char act er i s t i cs under § 3553( a) ( 1) beca us e t he cour t fai l ed t o cons i dert hathe
w as a model pr i s oner . W e di s agr ee. A tt he r es en tenc ing he ar i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr evi ew ed the appl i cabl e s ent enci ng fac t or s under§ 3553( a) , inclu d i ng t he natur e of the off ens e and Ri ver a’ s backgr ound, t he
s er i ous nes s of t he offe ns e, t he need for det err ence and pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c, t he r ange of sent ences av ai l able, and t he advis ory G uidel i ne r ang e as det erm i ned
. A m on g o t her t hings, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed: I h a v e re v iew e d th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt n o t o n c e b u t tw ice in th is c a se . A n d w h ile y ours t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es had bee n unevent ful exce ptfort hi s offe ns e, i ti s cl ear t hatthis o ff

en se w as t he r es ul tof s om eone w ho di d nothave the educ at i on ort he exper i ence t o get a l egal j ob t o hel p pay for y our s el f or y ourfami l yand y ou, t her efor e, turned to drugs. I n r e v i e wi n g t h e r a n g e o f s e n t e n c e t h a t ’ s p o s s i b l e , t h e c o u r tma k e s n o t e o f t h e f a ct th a t b e c a u se y o u h a d n o p rio r c o n v ictio n , the sa f e tyv a lv e w a s a p p lied in w h a t w o u ld ot herw i s e be a m andat or ys ent ence of 20 y ear s a much l es s ers ent ence . So t o t he 3 ext entt hat y o u have be nefi t t ed fr om t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes and the s ent enci ng s t atut e, y ou ar e r el i eved f r om t he mandat or ys ent ence . B ut I do t hi nk t hat t he s ent ence t haty ou pr evi ous l yr ece i ved of 96 mont hs i s an appr opr i at e s ent ence t o addre s s t he sent encing co ncerns w hich t he co urtm ustadd res s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtthere fo re a d eq u atelyco n side red the v ariou s sen tenc ing fa ctors u n d er § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng t he hi s t or yand char act er i s t i cs of t he defe ndant
. T he fac t t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t ex p licitlyre sp o n d to R iv e ra ’s a rg u m e n t co n c e rn in g h is e x e m p lar yre c o rd in pr i s o n – whi c h was u n s u p p o r t e d b yr e c o r d e v i d e n c e – i s n o td i s p o s i t i v e . I n g i vi ng6

“m ea n ing fu l con side rati o n ” to t h e § 35 5 3 (a) fa ctors, a dist ri ct co u rt n ee d n o t d iscu ss ev ery
ar gum entm ade byt he l i t i gant s , ors peci fi cal ly m ak e fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of t he § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s o lo n g a s th e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t th e c o u rt c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a s w e ll
a s th e m e ri to ri o u s a rg u m e n ts ra is e d b yth e p a rt i e s . C oo per, 437 F. 3d at329. H er e, t he
r ecor d r efl ect s t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t has done j us tt hat , and thus has s at i s fi ed the pr ocedur es
r e q u i r e d b y C ooperand ou r ot her cases. I I I . CO NC L US I ON R i ver a has fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of demonst r at i ng unr eas onabl enes s . T he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence w i l l be AFF I RM ED
.