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 8-12-2010 

# U SA v . M ark ei f Field s 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 . 09-3097

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_2010

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 2010 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 . M arkei f F ie ld s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 764. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/764-1- 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 o. 09- 3097

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. M A R K E IF F IE L D S , a /k /a M A R K IE F D O N ’T E P A R K E R , a / k/ a K I EF, A p p e llan t.

_____________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 4: C R - 06- 144) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

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

M ay21, 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: A ugus t12, 2010 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge M arkei f Fi el ds appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s 113- m ont h pr i s on s ent ence aft er-2-

pl eadi ng gui l t yt o one countof cons pi r acyw i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e and di s t r i but i ng 50 gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s the fa ct s onl yt o t he ext ent n ec essa ryfo r reso luti o n o f th e issu e o n ap p ea l. F iel d s an d D ev in H o ck ad ayw ere in v o lv e d in a c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c ra c k c o c a in e to c o -c o n sp ira to r Jim m yD a le D oebl er . T heys ol d one t o one and one - hal f ounce s of cr ack t o D oebl erbetw een thr ee and fourt i m es perw eek be t w een 2005 a nd 2006. O cca s i onal l y , Fi el ds and H ockada y w oul d r ece i ve fi r earm s fr om D oebl eras paym entforthe drugs . E ventual l y , Fi el ds and H o c k a d a ya rra n g e d f

o r K a lief F ield s to p u rc h a se th e c ra c k c o c a in e f ro m su p p liers in Phi l adel phi a and de l i veri tt o D oebl eri n N or t hum ber l and C ount y . D oebl erw oul d t hen r es el l t he cr ack c ocai ne i n t he s ur r oundi ng ar ea. A governm enti nform antpur chas ed d ru g s f ro m D o e b ler , w h ich tip p e d o f f th e a u th o rities to th e sc h e m e . P o lice u lti m a tely a rre ste d th e f

o u r m e n a n d c h a rg e d F ield s w ith c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te a n d d is tr ib u tin g 5 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e b a s e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846. Fi el ds ent er ed a gui l t ypl ea on the cha r ge. A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned the G ui del i ne s ent enci ng r ange t o be 113 t o 137 m ont hs . Fi el ds s oughta dow nw ar d var i ance pur s uantt o t he cr ack/pow der cocaine differ enti al . T he C ou rtden i ed h i s r equ estand sent enced him t o1 13 m on t hs’-3-

im p ri s o n m e n t. II. Fi el ds r ai s es one i s s ue on appe al

— w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e s ent ence w hen i tdecl i ned t o varydow nw ar d fr om the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed upon the cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al . W e r evi ew the r eas onabl enes s of Fi el ds ’ s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A p p e lla te re v ie w o f

a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n is o rd in a ri ly tw o f o ld . W e b eg in “b y‘en su r[ing ] th at th e d istri ct co u rtco m m itted n o sign ifi ca n t pro ce d u ral error, s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat or y , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s , s el ect i ng a s ent ence bas ed on cl ear l yerr oneous fac t s , orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence — i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. T om ko, 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ) . “I f the s ent enci ng deci s i on pas s es thatfi r s ts t age of r evi ew , w e then, ats t age tw o, cons i deri t s s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . “A n es t i m at i on of the out erbounds of w hati s ‘ r eas onabl e’ undera gi ven s etof ci r cumst ance s m aynotal w ay s be bey ond debat e, butt he abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d byw hi ch thates t i m at i on m us tbe j udged l i m i t s the debat e and gi ves di s t r i ctcour t s br oad l at i tude i n s ent enci ng. ” I d.Fi el ds does nots ugges tt hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orby 1 err oneous l yconcl udi ng t hati tl acke d di s cr et i on t o varyfr om the cr ack c ocai ne G u id e lin e s . -4- Fi el ds ’ chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o varydow nw ar ds bas ed upon t he cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al i s di r ect ed atthe s ent ence ’ s s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , and w e thus di r ectourat t ent i on s ol el yt o t hatques t i on. Fi el ds i s corr ect 1 t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad the di s cr et i on t o s o vary , s ee K i m br ough v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U . S . 8 5 , 1 1 0 (20 0 7 ), b u t i t w as n o t r eq u ir ed to d o so . In K im b rou g h , the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d t hat“i tw oul d notbe an a bus e of di s cr et i on fora di s t r i ctcourtt o concl ude w hen s ent enci ng a part i cul ardefe ndantt hatthe cr ack/pow derdi s par i t yi s ‘ gr eat erthan nece s s ary ’ t o achi eve § 3553( a) ’ s purpos es . . . . ” I d. at110. T he Supr eme C our tw ent fur t heri n Spear s v. U ni t ed St at es w hen i ts t at ed that“di s t r i ctcour t s ar e ent i t l ed t o r ej ect and varycat egor i cal l yfr om t he cr ack- coca i ne G ui del i nes bas ed on a pol i cydi s agr eement w i t h t hos e G ui del i nes . ” - - - U . S. - - - - , 129 S. C t . 840, 843- 844 ( 2009) . T hus , di s t r i ct c o u rts h a v e th e d isc re tio n to a p p lyth e e x istin g c ra c k /p o w d e r ra tio o r to im p lem e n t th e ir ow n r at i o, s o l ong as t heyar t i cul at e a r eas onabl e expl anat i on forthei rdeci s i on. “[T] he di s t r i ctcour tm us ts etfor t h enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthathe has cons i der ed t he part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal d ec isi o n m ak ing au tho ri ty . ” U n it ed S tat es v . M erc ed , 6 0 3 F . 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 5 -21 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H e re , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t a v a ria n c e w o u ld c re a te a se n ten c in g d isp a rity-5-

b e tw e e n F ield s a n d h is c o -d e f e n d a n ts, o n e o f

w h o m h a d a lre a d yb e e n se n ten c e d w ith in the c rac k G u idelines ran g e. W e h av e h eld th at “[ a]lth o u g h § 3 5 5 3 (a) d o es n o t r eq u ir e di s t r i ctcour t s t o cons i ders ent enci ng di s par i t yamong co- defe ndant s , i tal s o does not p ro h ib it th e m f

ro m d o in g s o .” U n ite d S ta te s v . P a rk e r, 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s vi ew , gi vi ng Fi el ds the bene fi tof thi s var i ance , w hi l e i m pos i ng t he c ra c k /p o w d e r ra tio o n a n o th e r c o n sp ira to rs w o u ld c re a te a n u n d u e se n ten c in g d isp a rity betw een the co- defe ndant s . I n an att empt t o avoi d unw arr ant ed di s par i t i es betw een c od e f e n d a n ts, th e ju d g e re f

u se d to g ra n t th is d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e , w h ich d o e s n o t co n stitu te a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id . A dd i t i on al l y , t he C ou rtcon cl ud ed thatthe seri ou s nature of F i el ds’ offense pr ecl uded a dow nw ar d var i ance . T he cons pi r at or s pl ed gui l t yt o t r ans por t i ng and di s t r i but i ng l ar ge amount s of cr ack c ocai ne i n excha nge form oneyand drugs . I n t he D istric t C o u rt’s v iew , g iv in g F ield s th e b e n e f it o f th e c ra c k /p o w d e r v a ria n c e w o u ld under s t at e the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e and w oul d w or k t o underm i ne the det err entand puni t i ve purpos es of the puni s hm ent . T hes e cons i der at i ons pr ovi de furt hers uppor tfor t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o varydow nw ar d bas ed upon the cr ack/pow dercoca i ne di ffe r ent i al . T hati s , t he C our tw ei ghed the compet i ng fac t or s under§ 3553( a) and det erm i ned thatt he i m pos i t i on of the G ui del i nes ’ cr ack/pow derr at i o r es ul t ed i n an a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . W e s e e n o a b u s e o f d is c re tio n in th is d e c is io n . III .-6-

F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.