2006 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 11-16-2006 

# U SA v . M edin 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 nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4930

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 nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 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 Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont 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 . M e d in a" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 197. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/197NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 . 05- 4930 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. F RA NC I S CO M E DI NA a / k / a P E DR O M AL DONAD O

F RA NC I S CO M E DI NA, A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt F o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 01- cr - 00106- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Fr eda L. W ol fs on Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember9, 2006 BE F OR E : S CI RI CA , Ch i e f J u d g e , M c KE E a n d S T AP L E T ON, C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed N ovember16, 2006 )2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antFr anci s co M edi na pl ed gui l t yt o cons pi r i ng t o di s t r i but e 178. 8 gr ams of cr ack. H e w as ul t i m at el ys ent ence d t o 135 m ont hs of i ncar cer at i on and fi ve y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, M edi na moved fora tw o- poi ntdow nw ar d adj us t m entunder U. S . S . G. § 3 B1 . 2 ( b ) b a s e d o n wh a th e c l a i me d t o b e h i s mi n o rr o l e i n t h e o f f e n s e . He i ns i s t ed thathe had pl ay ed a r el at i vel ym i norr ol e i n a drug bus i nes s oper at ed byhi s cod e f e n d a n t, D o m in g o V a le n tin . A f te r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , th is m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . W her e, as her e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdemonst r at es i n m aki ng i t s fac tual det erm i nat i ons t hat it u n d e rs to o d th e a p p lic a b le la w , w e re v ie w s u c h a d e n ia l f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). F in d in g s o f f a c t m a yth u s b e o v e rtu rn e d o n lyif t heyar e “c om pl et el ydevoi d of a c r edi bl e bas i s orbear. . . no r at i onal r el at i ons hi p t o t he s uppor t i ng dat a. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

aut , 1 0 7 F . 3 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A s th e D istric t C o u rt a c c u ra telyo b se rv e d , the f a c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in d eterm ining w h ethe r a d ef en d an t’ s role w as m ino r are: “the n ature o f th e d ef en d an t’ s r el at i ons hi p t o ot herpar t i ci pant s , ” “the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of the natur e and s cope of3

t he cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e, ” and “ t he i m por t ance of the def endant ’ s act i ons t o t he s ucce s s of th e v e n tu re .” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R odr iguez , 3 4 2 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t M e d in a ’s r o le w a s to re c ru it cu sto m e rs f o r V a len tin and t o actas a tr ans l at orforhi m w hen the cus t om er s s poke onl yE ngl i s h. I ts t r es s ed that M e d in a ’s p a rt ic ip a tio n w a s “ n o t a n is o la te d e v e n t,” b u t r a th e r i n v o lv e d “ re p e a te d ” s a le s . A p p . at 1 1 4 . T h e C o u rt h a d “ n o d o u b t” [ th a t M e d in a ] w a s in teg ra l to th e su c c e ss o f th is ventur e. ” A pp. at115. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded w i t h r ecor d s uppor tt hatM edi na w as aw ar e of t he natur e and s cope of t he cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e: H e w a s n ’t ju s t h a n d e d s o m e th in g o n o n e d a ya n d s a id , G o o u t a n d d o th is . H e w as aw ar e w her e the drugs w er e pi cked up, t he 710 Y or k [St r eet apart m ent ] , how i tw as acc om pl i s hed. H e w as i nvol ved i n us i ng hi s pager to m a k e c o n tac t; i n d e e d , [h e ] in v ited o f f ice r K in g to u se th a t p a g e r a s to w hen he w anted sal es. So he w as t he one w ho fac i l i t at ed how i tw oul d be done, and how paym entw as t o be made; and, i f i tw as tur ned overt o V al ent i n – I ’ l l acc ept t he t es t i m onyof M r . M edi na thathe tur ned the moneyovert o V al ent i n, and t hen gota por t i on of i t– how i tw entfr om begi nni ng t o end. A pp. at114- 15. T he C our tfur t herobs erved thatM edi na had pr evi ous l ys ol d drugs and “w as nota s t r angert o w hats el l i ng drugs m eans and w hatt he cons equenc es ar e. ” A pp. at 113. W hi l e M edi na t es t i fi ed thathe di d notpar t i ci pat e i n i m por t i ng coca i ne i nt o t he countr yand di d notpr oduce orpacka ge the cr ack c ocai ne, t he cons pi r acyof w hi ch he w as convi ct ed w as a cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e, and the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yfocus ed on4

M edi na’ s know l edge of t hatcons pi r acy . I tnot ed: “A nd even i f he w as n’ tt he one w ho packa ged the drugs , t hat ’ s notw hatt he i s s ue i s , i t ’ s di s t r i but i on. ” A pp. at116. It is tru e , as M e d in a stre ss e s, th a t th e re c o rd w o u ld su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t V a len tin w as the o rgani zer and leader of t his con spi racyand t hat M edina w as som ew hat l ess cul pabl e. A s w e obs er ved i n Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Br o wn , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), how ever , “the mer e fa ctt hata def endantw as l es s cul pabl e than hi s co- defe ndant s does notent i t l e the def

endantt o ‘ m i norpar t i ci pant ’ s t atus . ” I f that“w er e the ca s e, t hen the l eas tcul pabl e mem berof anycons pi r acyw oul d be a mi norpar t i ci pantr egar dl es s of that m ember ’ s par t i ci pat i on. ” I d. W h il e a sen tenc ing co u rtsh o u ld ev alua te th e d ef en d an t’ s p a rticip a tio n a n d c u lp a b ili tyin p a rt b yc o m p a rin g it w ith th e p a rticip a tio n a n d c u lp a b ili ty of other s , a def

endanti s notent i t l ed t o an adj us t m entunl es s hi s orherr ol e ca n fai r l ybe descri bed as “m i no r. ” H ere, t he D i stri ctC ou rtcon cl ud ed thatbased o n M edina’ s cl ose r el at i ons hi p w i t h V al ent i n and the i m por t ance of hi s act i vi t i es t o t he s ucce s s of the cons pi r acy , M edi na’ s r ol e w as cl ear l ynotm i nor . T hi s concl us i on w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. M edi na w as s ent ence d befor e the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), an d th e p a rties a g re e th a t a r e m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g is r equi r ed underourdeci s i on i n U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n r emand, w hen i ni t i al l ycal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange a tt he f irst ste p in th e p o st- B ookers ent enci ng pr oces s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm ay , i f i tr emai ns of5

t he s ame vi ew , decl i ne t o appl ya dow nw ar d adj us t m entunderU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be r ever s ed, and thi s cas e w i l l be r emanded forr es ent enci ng i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.