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 7-24-2009 

# U SA v . Ariel Ja vie r 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 . 08-3350

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 . Ariel J a vie r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 954. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/954NOT 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- 3350

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ARI EL J AVI ER,

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. 1- 05- cr - 00139- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________ 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: J ul y24, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A r i el J avi erappea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng hi s m ot i on for m odi fi cat i on of s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) and r educi ng hi s s ent ence t o 136 mo n th s o f

i mp r i s o n me n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2 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. O n February15, 2006, J avi erpl eade d gui l tyt o a tw o- counts uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent char gi ng hi m w i th one countof i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than fi ftygr ams of coc ai ne bas e, in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(A ), an d w ith o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than fi ftygr ams of coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . E ach co un tcarr i ed a m and at orym i nim um t erm of im pri sonm ent of no tl ess th a n ten y e a rs a n d a m a x im u m ter m o f life im p riso n m e n t. T h e U n it ed S tat es P rob ati o n O ff ice p rep are d a P rese n tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt us i ng the M ar ch 2006 edi t i on of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce c al cul at ed J avi er ’ s bas e off ens e l evel as 36 underU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1 and re c o m m e n d e d n o a d

ju stm e n ts. T h e re su lti n g to tal o f f e n se lev e l o f

3 6 , co m b in e d w ith J avi er ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I , y i el ded a pr opos ed G ui del i nes r ange of 210 t o 260 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m e n t. A t a sen tenc ing h ea ri n g h eld o n Ju ly1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted J av ier a tw o- l evel r educt i on underU . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1( a) foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i tyand a one le v e l r e d u c tio n u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) f o r t im e ly n o tif

ic a tio n o f

in te n t to p le a d g u ilty. C ons equent l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tl ow er ed J avi er ’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel t o 33, w hi ch r es ul t ed3

i n an adv i soryG uidel i nes range o f 15 1 to 188 m on ths. A ft er heari ng the p art i es’ a r g u me n t s a n d th o r o u g h l yr e v i e wi n g th e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s s e tf

o r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d J avi ert o 170 m onths of i m pr i s onm enton eac h c o u n t, t o b e se rv e d c o n c u rre n tly . Ja v ier d id n o t ap p e a l. A ppr oxi m at el ytw o y ear s l at er , on J une 13, 2008, J avi erfi l ed a mot i on for m od i fi cat i on of sen t ence u nd er § 358 2(c) (2) , based o n A m end m ent 706 to the G uidel i nes, wh i c h r e d u c e d th e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o rmo s tc r a c k c o c a i n e o f f e n s e s b ytwo l e v e l s . He r eques t ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tr educe hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel t o 31, l ow erhi s G ui del i nes r ange t o 121 t o 151 m onths , and i m pos e a ne w s ent ence atthe bott om of thatr ange. T he P ro b a tio n O f

f ice a g re e d th a t Ja v ier w a s e lig ib le f o r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n a n d th a t h is r eca l cul at ed advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange w oul d be 121 t o 151 m onths , butdi d notm ake a r ecomm endat i on as t o w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d gr anthi s m ot i on. O n J ul y23, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed J avi er ’ s m ot i on and, w i thout conduct i ng a hea r i ng, r educe d hi s s ent ence t o 136 m onths , the mi dpoi ntof the l ow er ed G ui del i nes r ange. J avi erfi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence . II. O n a p p e a l, Ja v ier a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yf a ili n g to h o ld a h e a rin g a n d b yf

a ili n g to p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te e x p lan a tio n f o r th e se n ten c e th a t it i m pos ed on hi m . H e al s o cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. T he4

G overnm entdi s put es al l thes e poi nt s , and i n addi t i on cont ends thatw e do nothave juri sd ict ion to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. A s a n in iti a l m a tter, th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n h e re is for ecl os ed byourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. St

yer , N o . 0 8 - 2 9 5 1 , - - - F . 3 d - - - - , 2 0 0 9 WL 7 6 6 4 9 4 , a t * 1 n .2 (3 d C ir . M a r. 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 ). St yeralso req u ir es u s to rejec t Jav ier’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s e n title d to a h e a ri n g . See i d. a t * 2 (“ H o w a c o u rt d e c id e s to cons i dera § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on i s a mat t erof di s cr et i on. ” ( ci t i ng Ti dw el lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 178 F. 3d 946, 949 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ) ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our ther e, l i ke thati n St yer , “s ent ence d [J avi er ] i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w as fami l i arw i th the fa ct s of the ca s e and [ thus w as ] i n the bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne w hethera hea r i ng w as w arr ant ed. ” I d. O n th is rec o rd, w e d o n o t believe that the D istri ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing Jav ier’s r eques tfora hea r i ng. W e al s o r ej ectJ avi er ’ s ar gum entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by fai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n i t s deci s i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence t o 136 m onths . W hi l e the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t spe cifica ll yref ere n ce the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors in re d u cing Jav ier’s s ent ence , i tundert ook a compr ehens i ve ana l y s i s of the fa ct or s i n i m pos i ng hi s or i gi nal s ent ence . A nd i tw as notr equi r ed t o cons i derhi s pos t - convi ct i on conducti n det erm i ni ng th e e x te n t o f

th e re d u c tio n . See U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 c m t. n.1 (b )(iii) (“ T h e c o u rt m ay cons i derpos t - s ent enci ng conductof the def endantthatoccurr ed af

t eri m pos i t i on of the o ri g inal term o f im p ri so n m en t i n d eterm ining : ( I) W h ethe r a red u cti o n in the d ef en d an t’ s5

ter m o f im p riso n m e n t is w a rra n ted ; an d (II) th e e x ten t o f su c h re d u c tio n . . . . ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); see al

so St yer , 2009 W L 766494, at*2 n. 4. F in a lly , w e re

jec t Ja v ier ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h is s e n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly unr eas onabl e. B eca us e hi s s ent ence “fa l l s w i thi n a br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s t hat can be cons i der ed i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and “‘ the r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful c o n s id e ra tio n ’” o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs , U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 568 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat 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 )), w e w i l l nots econd gue s s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on. III . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.