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- 3937

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. Z I A B E RI S HA, A p p e llan t.

____________ 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. 09- cr - 00017) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y2, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . Z i a B er i s ha pl eade d gui l tyt o cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e ec s t acyi n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 176 m onths i ncar cer at i on and B er i s ha fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , chal l engi ng onl yhi s s ent ence . B er i s ha cl ai m s the D istri ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n w h en itd en ied h is m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture forover s t at ed cr i m i nal hi s t orypur s uantt o § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 1) of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s ( USS G o rGu i d e l i n e s ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e, w e r ecountonl ythos e as pect s of the ca s e thatar e es s ent i al t o our deci s i on. B e rish a p lea d e d g u ilty , p u rsu a n t to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, to a o n e -c o u n t in f

o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 3 ,4 -m e th y len e d io x y -m e th a m p h e tam in e (e c sta c y ) f ro m M a y2 0 0 6 to N ovember2006. T he pl ea a gr eements t i pul at ed a ba s e off ens e l evel of 28, a 2- l evel enhanc ementforbei ng an or gani zerof the cr i m i nal act i vi ty , and a 3- l evel r educt i on for t i m el yacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 27. Pur s uantt o t he pl ea a gr eement , nei therB er i s ha northe G overnm entw oul d appea l the sentence i f i tfel l w i thin or bel ow the G uidel i nes range associat ed w i th a tot al off ense leve l of 2 7 . T h e p lea a g ree m en t cau ti o n ed that “[ t] h is ag ree m en t t o sti p u lat e, ho w ev er,3

cannotand does notbi nd the s ent enci ng j udge, w ho m aym ake i ndepende ntfac tual fi ndi ngs and mayr ej ectanyoral l of the s t i pul at i ons ent er ed i nt o bythe part i es . ” M o reo v er, th e p lea a g ree m en t did n o t i n clud e a n ysti p u lat ion s reg ard ing B erisha ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryan d ea ch p artyrese rve d the righ t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on i n t hatr egar d. T he ca l cul at i ons cont ai ned i n the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( PSR ) di ffe r ed in se v e ra l w a y s f

ro m th e p lea a g re e m e n t. F irst, th e P S R a ttribu ted a m u c h h ig h e r q u a n tity of drugs t o B er i s ha, i ncl udi ng l ar ge amount s of oxy codone. T he PSR al s o r ej ect ed any r ol e enha ncement , fi ndi ng thatB er i s ha w as equal l yr es pons i bl e w i th hi s partnerforthe drug di s tr i but i on. M os tr el evanther e, the pr obat i on offi ce f ound B er i s ha t o be a c ar eer o f f e n d e r u n d e r U S S G § 4 B 1 .1 b a se d o n p a st c o n v ictio n s f o r p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l tw i th b o d i l y i n j u ry. B er i s ha obj ect ed t o t he PSR ’ s i ncl us i on of conduc tr el at ed t o oxy codone d istri b u ti o n an d to h is cl assifica ti o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er. H e a lso m o v ed fo r a d o w n w ard departur e underU SSG § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 1) bas ed on over s t at ed cr i m i nal hi s t ory . B er i s ha ar gued that , though t he pr i orconvi ct i ons ci t ed bythe PSR t echni cal l ys at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s of U SSG § 4B 1. 1, car eeroffe nders t atus overr epr es ent ed the s er i ous nes s of thos e cha r ges beca us e he w as s ent ence d t o onl ypr obat i on i n eac h cas e. A tthe sentenci ng heari ng , the D i stri ctC ou rtheard t est i m on yfrom the F B I cas e agentr egar di ng the quant i tyof drugs forw hi ch B er i s ha s houl d be hel d r es pons i bl e. T he4

Co u r ta l s o i n v i t e d a r g u me n tr e g a r d i n g Be r i s h a ’ s mo t i o n f o ra d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e . At the conc l us i on of the t es t i m onyand ar gum ent , the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatB er i s ha coul d be hel d r es pons i bl e fors om e, butnotal l , of the oxy codone c i t ed i n the PSR . I n t he fi nal anal y s i s , how ever , thi s fi ndi ng w as notm at er i al , beca us e B er i s ha’ s offe ns e l evel w as dr i ven byhi s cl as s i fi cat i on as a ca r eeroffe nder , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 29. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen r ej ect ed B er i s ha’ s ar gum entthathi s des i gnat i on as a ca r eer o ff en d er o v erstated the s eriou sn ess o f h is cri m inal h ist o ryan d d en ied h is m o ti o n fo r a dow nw ar d departur e, l eavi ng hi m w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I . T hus , B er i s ha fac ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 151 t o 188 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . A ft ercons i der i ng the fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and s t at ement s fr om B er i s ha and hi s fami l y , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt s e n te n c e d B e ri s h a to a w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o f 1 7 6 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t, 4 y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se , an d a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. O n appea l , B er i s ha ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re a n d in f a ili n g to m e a n in g f

u lly cons i deral l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . W e cons i derthes e ar gum ent s i n turn. II. A. B e rish a ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it d e n ied h is m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e underU SSG § 4A 1. 3 i s pl ai nl yw i thoutm er i t . W e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a d is c re tio n a ry d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re . See5

U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 9 4 , 1 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 332 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . J ur i s di ct i on ar i s es onl yi f the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al w as bas ed on the mi s t aken be l i ef thati tl acke d di s cr et i on t o depart , an ar gum entB er i s ha has n o t m a d e h e re . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D om i nguez , 2 9 6 F . 3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

B. T o t he ext entthatB er i s ha ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by ref u sing to v aryd o w n w ard o n the b asis o f h is pu rpo rt ed lyo v erstated crim inal h ist o ry (a n d it is u n c le a r t h a t h e d o e s s o ) w e re je c t th a t a rg u m e n t a s w e ll. See U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 5 8 5 F . 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (r ec o g n izi n g that, af ter U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , s ent enci ng courtm ayachi eve e ffe ctof a § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 1) departur e byvary i ng dow nw ar d atthe thi r d s t age of s ent enci ng) . B er i s ha cont ended that the career offen der enh ancem ent exagg erat ed the ser i ou sness of his pastcon du ctbecau se h e w as se n tenc ed o n lyto p rob ati o n o n the p red icate state o ff en ses. T h e re co rd demonstr at es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed thes e ar gum ent s and r ej ect ed them, fi ndi ng thatthe ca r eeroffe nderdes i gnat i on acc ur at el yr efl ect ed the s ubs t ance of B er i s ha’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , ther ebyw ei ghi ng i n favorof a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence . A tthe thi r d s t age of

s ent enci ng, w hen di s cus s i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , the D i s tr i ct C o u r tw e n ti n t o g r e a td e t a i l r e g a r d i n g th e c o n c e rn s r a i s e d b y B e r i s h a ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, ob serving t hat B eri sha had 17 pri or arres t s and 5 con vict i on s, no t i ng that the seri ou sness of hi s offe ns es had es cal at ed overt i m e, and r emar ki ng thatB er i s ha had nott aken6

advant age of

pr i oroppor tuni t i es t o r eform hi s behavi or . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed B erisha ’s arg u m en t i n m it igation that h e h ad o n lyb ee n sen tenc ed to p rob ati o n . T h e C o u rt not ed thatB er i s ha vi ol at ed hi s pr obat i on and ci t ed the obs ervat i ons of the s t at e pr obat i on offi certhatB er i s ha “made a pooradj us t m entt o s upervi s i on. ” Forthes e r eas ons , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o varydow nw ar d on thi s bas i s w as notunr eas onabl e. C. B er i s ha nextcont ends thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i c tC o u r tf

a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n h i s s e n t e n c e , a s r e q u i r e d b y G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 0 (2 0 0 7 ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ) (“ [ I]t is e q u a llyim p o rta n t th a t d istric t co u rts p ro v id e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls w i th an exp l anati on ‘s uff i ci ent for us t o see t hat the p art i cularci rcum st ances o f t he case h a v e b e e n g iv e n m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n w ith in th e p a ra m e te rs o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ).’ ” ). B er i s ha conc edes thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t“di d r evi ew the pert i nent§ 3553 fac t or s , ” buthe ar gues thatthe C our tpl ace d di s pr opor t i onat e r el i ance on hi s “over s t at ed pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t ory ” and the nee d fordet err ence . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons ci ent i ous l ycons i der ed the re leva n t § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d ad eq u atelyex p lai n ed it s ass essm en t of ea ch o n e. In ad d it ion to it s d iscu ssion o f B erisha ’s crim inal h ist o ry , the C o u rtn o ted th e se ri o u s n ature of the drug co nspir acyi n w hich B eri sha w as i ntr i cat el yi nv olved. T he C ou rtal so re v iew e d B e rish a ’s p e rso n a l h isto ry , inc lu d in g h is a n g e r m a n a g e m e n t issu e s a n d stru g g le7

w i th drug addi ct i on. T he C our texpl ai ned w hyi tw as r efus i ng the r eques t s forl eni ency fr om B er i s ha and hi s fami l ym ember s , s t at i ng thatthei rw i l l i ngnes s t o i nt ervene a nd s uppor tB er i s ha coul d notal l evi at e the “s er i ous and r eal r i s k of [Ber i s ha] comm i t t i ng fur thercr i m es i n t he futur e” a s s how n bythei rfai l ur e t o i nt ervene i n the pas tand B e rish a ’s e sc a latin g p a ttern o f c rim in a l co n d u c t. Ita lso to u c h e d o n th e n e e d to a v o id unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es , not i ng thatB er i s ha’ s co- defe ndanthad r ece i ved a lo w e r s e n te n c e b e c a u s e o f d if f e re n c e s in c ri m in a l h is to ry a n d re le v a n t d ru g q u a n tity. A l th o u g h th e C o u r ts p e n tr e l a t i v e l y m o r e t i m e d i s c u s s i n g B e r i s h a ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry, deterrence, and the n eed to prot ectthe p ub l i c from further cr i m es, the em ph asi s on these fact ors w as not unj ust i fi ed b ecause theyw ere hi gh l yrel evan tun der the cir cum st ances. I n s um , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s expl anat i on of i t s s ent ence w as s uffi ci entt o enabl e our r evi ew forpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , and w e fi nd both s t andar ds s a tis f ie d . S e e id . at 5 6 7 . 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.