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 3-21-2008 

# U SA v . El-H omsi 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 . 06-5213

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 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 . El -H om si " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1400. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1400NOT 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- 5213 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. K A M A L S. EL- H O M SI K a m a l E l-H o m si, Appel lant 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 rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00465 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 14, 2008 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , C H A G A R E S , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 21, 2008)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge .D u rin g th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , n e ith e r E l-H o m si n o r th e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitly 1 sta ted th e sp e c if

ic § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to r u n d e r w h ich E l-H o m si s o u g h t a v a ria n c e b a se d o n h is compul s i ve gambl i ng di s or der . H ow ever , on appea l , E l - H om s i as s ert s thathe r eques t ed 1 A ppel l antK amal E l - H om s i appea l s hi s D ece m ber20, 2006 s ent ence . H e cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byi m pr oper l yal l ow i ng the s t andar ds fora depa r tur e under th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s” ) to c o n tro l it s d e c isio n w h e th e r to g ra n t a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e p u rsu a n t to its d isc re tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ). E lH om s i ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s , ther efor e, unr eas onabl e as a mat t erof l aw . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence . I. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l on lyad d ress tho se f ac ts ne ce ssary t o ouropi ni on. O n J une 8, 2005, the G r and J uryforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyr eturned a 13- count i ndi ctm entagai ns tE l - H om s i , char gi ng hi m w i th tw el ve count s of s tructur i ng fi nanci al tr ans act i ons t o avoi d r eport i ng r equi r ement s , i n vi ol at i on of 31 U . S. C . § 5324( a) ( 3) , and one countof cr edi tcar d fr aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1029( a) ( 2) . O n A ugus t3, 2 0 0 6 , p u rs u a n t to a p le a a g re e m e n t, E l- H o m s i p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f e a c h c h a rg e . T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed an a dvi s oryG ui del i nes ra n g e o f 3 7 to 4 6 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. D u rin g th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , n e ith e r E lH om s i northe G overnm entar gued fora depa r tur e fr om the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes ran g e. E l- H o m si did, ho w ev er, r eq u est a d o w n w ard v arian ce u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). 1the v ari ance u nd er § 355 3(a) (1) , based o n “the natur e and ci rcum st ances o f t he o ffen se

and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant . ” App el lan t ’s B r. at 14 . E l- H o m si’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyats ent enci ng the s peci fi c § 3553( a) gr ounds forvary i ng fr om the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange i s i ncons equent i al forthe purpos es of ouranal y s i s . W e do n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t w e h a v e re p e a ted lye m p h a siz e d th e o b lig a tio n o f c o u n se l to “ c lea rly pl ace the s ent enci ng gr ounds theyar e r ai s i ng on the r ecor d atthe t i m e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D r agon , 4 7 1 F .3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 E l - H om s i cl ai m ed s uch a va r i ance w as appr opr i at e bec aus e the cr i m es ati s s ue w er e, at lea st in p a rt, th e re su lt o f h is c o m p u lsiv e g a m b lin g d iso rd e r. In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, E l - H om s i pr es ent ed t es t i m onybyV al er i e C . L or enz, Ph. D . , E xecut i ve D i r ect orof the C om pul s i ve G ambl i ng C ent er , w ho opi ned thatE l - H om s i w oul d nothave c om m i t t ed the c ri m e s f o r w h ic h h e w a s b e in g s e n te n c e d if n o t f o r h is p a th o lo g ic a l g a m b lin g d is o rd e r. A l though t he D i s tr i ctC our tacc ept ed thatE l - H om s i has a mi l d compul s i ve g a m b lin g d iso rd e r, itre jec ted h is re q u e st f

o r a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e , an d se n ten c e d h im to 37 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , pl us 3 y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a s ent ence atthe bott om of the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange. E l - H om s i appea l s fr om hi s s ent ence . II. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . T h is C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and, forthe purpos es of rev iew ing the s en tenc e im p o sed , 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). W e re v ie w s e n te n c e s f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r a n a b u s e -o f -d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 4 (20 0 7 ). III .3

O n ap p ea l, E l- H o m si argu es th at his sen tenc e is u n rea so n ab le, an d there fo re s houl d be vac at ed. M or e s peci fi cal l y , E l - H om s i ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the G ui del i nes s t andar ds fora dow nw ar d departur e bas ed on r educe d m ent al capa ci ty , i ns t ead o f p ro p e rlye x e rc isin g its d isc re tio n u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), to d e c id e w h e th e r to g ra n t h is r eques tfora dow nw ar d var i ance . W e r ej ectthi s ar gum entand w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence . R ece nt l y , i n G a ll , the S up rem e C ou rtrei t erat ed the process a di stri ctcou rtm ust fol l ow i n s ent enci ng a def endant . 128 S. C t . at596- 97. A l though U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), h e ld th a t th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s a re a d v iso ryo n ly , the yre m a in

“ th e s ta rt in g p o in t a n d th e in itia l b e n c h m a rk ” in s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s . G a ll , 128 S. C t . at 5 9 6 ; s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 331 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( the G ui del i nes ar e “a natur al s t art i ng poi ntforthe det erm i nat i on of the appr opr i at e l evel of puni s hm ent forcr i m i nal conduct ”) . A ccor di ngl y , a di s tr i ctcourtm us tbegi n bycal cul at i ng the a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . G a ll , 128 S. C t . at596. T hi s C our thas expl ai ned that , as p a rt o f c a lcu latin g th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e , the d istric t co u rt m u st “ f o rm a llyru le on the mot i ons of both part i es and s t at e on the r ecor d w hether[i ti s ] gr ant i ng a depa r tur e, and how thatdepartur e af fec t s the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on, 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 oryfor ce. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W ise , - - - F. 3d - - - ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Fi nal l y , aft ergi vi ng eac h4

p artythe o p p o rtu n ityto arg u e f o r th e se n tenc e itd ee m s ap p rop ri ate, th e d istri ct co u rt m u st e x e rc ise its p o st- B ookerd isc re tio n in c o n sid e rin g a ll o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs to d e te rm in e th e a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 5 9 6 ; s ee al s o G unt er , 462 F. 3d at 247. O urappel l at e r evi ew of the r eas onabl enes s of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence focus es on w h e th e r t h e c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n in im p o s in g th e c h o s e n s e n te n c e . G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 59 7 . O u r i n q u iryh as tw o step s. F ir st, w e m u st de term ine w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt c o m m itt e d a n ysig n if

ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in a rriv in g a t it s d e c isio n , su c h a s “ f a ili n g to 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 the G ui del i nes as m a n d a to ry , fa ili n g to c o n sid e r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rly err oneous fac t s , orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n the 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. ” I d. N ext , i f the di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , w e r evi ew t he s e n te n c e f

o r s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s . Id . In c o n d u c tin g th is re v iew , w e tak e in to acc ountthe “t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . ” Id . W e m ayn o t r ev erse the d istri ct co u rt s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d a d if f e re n t s e n te n c e . Id . T urni ng t o ourr evi ew of the s ent ence athand, w e not e thatE l - H om s i cl ai m s w hat i s es s ent i al l ya pr ocedur al err oron the partof the D i s tr i ctC our t . H e ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n the l as ts t ep of the s ent enci ng pr oces s , byi m pr oper l yal l ow i ng t he G ui del i nes s t andar d fora depa r tur e underU . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 13 t o l i m i ti t s di s cr et i on underT hi s C our tdr aw s a di s t i nct i on betw een a “var i ance ” fr om a G ui del i nes r ange a nd 2 a “ d e p a rt u re ” f

ro m a G u id e lin e s ra n g e . U ni t ed Stat es v. V

am pi r e N at i on , 451 F. 3d 189, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A courtgr ant s a “de partur e” f r om the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on s p e c if ic G u id e lin e s p ro v is io n s th a t a u th o ri z e s u c h c h a n g e s . See G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247 n. 10. A courtgr ant s a “va r i ance ” fr om the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on B ookerand the s e n te n c in g c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n a ry c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . Id . 5 § 3553( a) ( 1) t o gr anta var i ance bas ed on hi s compul s i ve gambl i ng di s or der . U ndert he 2 G ui del i nes , a di s tr i ctcourtm aygr anta depa r tur e pur s uantt o § 5K 2. 13 onl yw her e: “( 1) the def endantcomm i t t ed the off ens e w hi l e s uffe r i ng fr om a s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al capa ci ty ; and ( 2) the s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al capa ci tycontr i but ed s ubs t ant i al l yt o the comm i s s i on of the off

ens e. ” D ur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed that i tw oul d r equi r e “notonl ythe ver i fi ed exi s t ence of the condi t i on i t s el f, but[al s o] a ca us al n e x u s th a tr e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l yd i mi n i s h e d c a p a c i tyo f th e d e f e n d a n ta tth e t i me w hen he w as comm i t t i ng the cr i m e” t o gr antthe r eques t ed var i ance forcompul s i ve g a m b lin g d is o rd e r. App . at242. E l - H om s i cont ends thatthe s i m i l ar i tyof thi s s t at ement t o the l anguage of the depa r tur e s t andar d forr educe d m ent al capa ci tyi ndi cat es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed i t s di s cr et i on under§ 3553( a) cons tr ai ned bythe enumer at ed g ro u n d s f

o r a d e p a rt u re u n d e r § 5 K 2 .1 3 . W e d is a g re e . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no pr ocedur al err or . I tbegan the s ent enci ng by ca lculati n g the c o rrect ad v isoryG u idelines ran g e. N eith er p artyreq u ested a d ep arture u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s . A c c o rd in g ly, th e C o u rt m o v e d o n to e v a lu a te th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . R ead a s a w hol e, the C our t ’ s s t at ement s ats ent enci ng i ndi cat e thati tcl ear l yunder s t ood6

th e d istin c tio n b e tw e e n a d e p a rtu re p u rsu a n t to th e G u id e lin e s a n d a v a ria n c e b a se d o n its d iscreti o n u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a). In f ac t, as e m p h asize d b ythe G o v ern m en t, the D istri ct C o u rt e x p lic itly m e n tio n e d th e d is tin c tio n s e v e ra l tim e s d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . S e e , e .g ., App . at244- 45 ( “[T] her e i s no departur e s oughti n thi s cas e underthe G ui del i nes . W hat is s o u g h t is a n a d

ju stm e n t f

o r v a ria n c e u n d e r 3 5 5 3 ” ); App. at92 ( “[W ] hatI ’ m cons i der i ng then i s the ar gum entfora B ookerv a ria n c e a p p ly in g o th e r 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs” ); App. at240 (“T h e d ef

en d an t’ s sec o n d p o int fo r a v arian ce u n d er 3 5 5 3 (a) arises f rom the d ef

en d an t’ s compul s i ve gambl i ng di s or der ”) . W e al s o not e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed i t s r eas ons fordeny i ng E l - H om s i ’ s var i ance r eques tdur i ng i t s di s cus s i on of al l of the § 3553( a) fact ors. T he fa ctthatthe D i s tr i ctC our t , i n cons i der i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , us ed l anguage s im ila r t o th a t u s e d in a G u id e lin e s d e p a rt u re s ta n d a rd d o e s n o t d ic ta te a c o n tr a ry re s u lt. It m e re lyin d ica tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re q u ire d , b e f o re e x e rc isin g its d isc re tio n to gr anta var i ance under§ 3553( a) ( 1) , thatE l - H om s i pr ove hi s compul s i ve gambl i ng di s or dercaus ed the cr i m es ati s s ue. T o vaca t e El - H om s i ’ s s ent ence bas ed s ol el yon the s i m i l ar i tyof the depa r tur e l anguage i n the G ui del i nes and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l anguage w oul d be t o el evat e form overs ubs t ance , an appr oach t o s ent enci ng thatthi s C our thas re je c te d re p e a te d ly. See D r agon , 471 F. 3d at506. E l - H om s i does notchal l enge the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence on ap p ea l. B ec au se w e c an d iscern n o p roc ed u ral or su b stan ti v e e rror related to E l- H o m si’ s7

s e n t e n c e , we wi l l a f

f i r m. I V. Forthe above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence .