2007 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 6-29-2007 

# U SA v . D ol l son 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 . 05-2881

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

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 l l a nova 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 2007 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . D o ll s on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 864. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/864NOT 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 os . 05- 2881/ 3900
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DWAYNE DOL L S ON, 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 f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 04- cr - 00402) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W
. K auff m an
A r gued on D ece m ber12, 2006
B efor e: SM I T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges *I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: J une 29, 2007 )

*H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni or U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

Ro b e r tA. Z a u z me r , E s q u i r e ( AR GUE D) A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y C h ief o f A p p e a ls Pat r i ck L. M eeha n, E s qui r e U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney K en y a S
. M an n , E sq u ir e A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l antU ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca
E li za b eth T
. H ey , E sq u ir e (A R G U E D ) A s s i s t antFeder al D efe nder R o b ert E p stei n , E sq u ir e D av id L
. M cC o lgin, E sq u ir e Super vi s i ng A ppel l at e A t t or ney M au ree n K ea rne yR o w ley , E sq u ir e C hi ef Fede r al D efe nder Feder al C om m uni t yD efe nderO ffi ce f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia Sui t e 540- W es tC ur t i s C ent er 601 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

C ouns el forA ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee, D w ayne D ol l s on

O P I N I O N

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: T h i s c a s e c o me s t o u s o n c r o s s - a p p e a l s b y t h e d e f e n d a n t , Dw a yn e Dol l s o n , and t he governm ent . D ol l s on chal l en g es var i ous as pect s of hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence ; t heT he packa ge w as addr es s ed t o “K evi n H i ggs , 9701 M i l l C r eek Road, #2905, L evi t t ow n, 1 PA ”; D ol l s on i nhabi t ed t he apar t m ent at 9071 M i l l C r eek Road, #2905. I ni t i al l y , t he foc us on D ol l s on’ s addr es s w as t he r es ul tof the i nves t i gat or s ’ m i s r eadi ng orm i s comm uni cat i on. T he err orw as notbr oughtt o t he i nves t i gat or s ’ at t ent i on unt i l m ont hs lat er, w h en D ol l s on chal l enged the val i di t yof the w arr ant ; fur t heri nves t i gat i on att hi s poi ntr evea l ed that9701 M ill C re e k R o a d w a s in f a c t a n e m p ty lo t. 3 g o v e rn m e n t cr o ss -a p p e a ls o n lyD oll son’s se n ten c e . F o r th e re a so n s e x p lain e d b e lo w , w e w ill aff i r m D ol l s on’ s convi ct i on butw e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory B eca us e the par t i es ar e fami l i ar w i t h t he fa ct s and pr ocedur al pos tur e, w e w i l l pr ovi de
o n ly a b ri e f

s yn o p s is o f

th e e v e n ts le a d in g u p to th is a p p e a l. O n J une 16, 2004, a pac kage c ont ai ni ng over one ki l ogr am of coca i ne w as i nt er cept ed i n t he m ai l s . I nves t i gat or s obt ai ned an a nt i ci pat or ys ear ch w arr antforD ol l s on’ s r es i dence ,
w h e r e t h e y b e l i e v e d t h e p a c k a g e w a s d i r e c t e d , a n d p e r f o r m e d a c o n t r o l l e d d e l i v e r y. 1 D ol l s on, w ho had bee n att he pos toffi ce i n q u ir ing abouta pac kage, w as i nfor m ed of the del i ve r y b y h i s t e e n - a g e d s o n a n d r e tu r n e d h o me . A tr a n s p o n d e r d e v i c e h i d d e n i n t he packa ge al er t ed pol i ce w hen D ol l s on o p en ed t he pac kage. T he ens ui ng s ear ch tur ned up evi dence of D ol l s on’ s r ece nts hor t t r i ps t o L os A ngel es , t he ci t yof or i gi n of the mai l i ng, and
o f la rg e w ir e tr a n s f

e rs to th a t c ity. A tt r i al , a pos t al carr i er t es t i fi ed t hat a bl ack m al e – i dent i fi ed as D ol l s on by a pos t al in sp e c to r w h o w a s o b se rv in g th e sc e n e – h a d in q u ire d a b o u t a p a c k a g e w ith a n e x p re ss m a il i dent i fi cat i on num bers i m i l art o t he one a ti s s ue. A G overnm entexpertt es t i fi ed thati tw asO n ap p ea l, D o ll so n co n tend ed that (1) the D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing D o llso n ’s 2 m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence found i n and ar ound hi s apart m ent , beca us e the w arr ant pur s uantt o w hi ch the s ear ch w as per for m ed w as overbr oad and i ns uffi ci ent l ypar t i cul ar ; ( 2) t her e w as nots uffi ci entevi dence att r i al t o pr ove thathe knew t he p ac k ag e h e r ece i ved cont ai ned a contr ol l ed subs t ance ; and (3) t he pr os ecut orcomm i t t ed pr ej udi ci al m i s conduct 4 no tun com m on for drugs t o b e shi pp ed to a fi ct i t i ou s nam e or even sl i gh tlyw rong ad dress t o avoi d i ncr i m i nat i ng evi denc e. D ol l s on’ s defe ns e theoryw as t hathe had e xpect ed a packa ge fr o m h is “gods i s t er , ” w i t h w hom , he cl ai m ed, he r an a c os m et i cs m ai l

- or der b u sin e ss , an d th a t h e h a d b e e n in L o s A n g e les to w a tch th e L o s A n g e les L a k e rs b a sk e tb a ll t eam com pet e i n t he pl ay offs
. A l t hough D o ll son’ s “gods i s t er ” t es t i fi ed, no r ecor ds of a
cos m et i cs bus i nes s w er e i nt r oduced, and t he G overnm ents how ed thatt he Laker s had pl ay ed
aw ayfro m L o s A n g eles d u ri n g o n e o f D o ll so n ’s sh o rtv isi ts. O n F eb rua ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , the ju ry f o u n d D o llso n g u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n w it h in ten t to d istrib u te o v e r 5 0 0 g ra m s o f c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) ( C ount 1) , and us e of a comm uni cat i on fac i l i t yi n vi ol at i on
o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 3 (b ) ( C o u n t 2 ). T he Pr es ent enci ng I nves t i gat i on R epor tcal cul at ed the appl i cabl e Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange a s 360 m ont hs t o l i fe. W i t h m i ni m al expl anat i on and overvehement obj ect i on byt he G overnm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d D ol l s on t o 192 m o n ths on t he po sses si on cou nt and 96 m on t hs, t o run con curr entl y , on C ou nt 2, fol l ow ed b yei gh ty ears ’
s upervi s ed r el eas e. D ol l s on appea l ed hi s convi ct i on an d sent ence on a numberof gr ounds ; t he G overnm entcr os s - appea l ed, ar gui ng t he s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. 2dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entbyi m pr oper l ys hi ft i ng t he bur den of pr oof, m i s s t at i ng t he l aw and

t he evi dence , and mi s s t at i ng t he fa ct s , i m pr oper l yr efe r r i ng to D ol l s on’ s chi l dr en, and vouchi ng fort he G overnm ent ’ s cas e. H e al s o chal l enged hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng t he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n s ent enci ng hi m forpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e over5 0 0 gr ams of coca i ne; atm os t , he had pos s es s ed 116 gr ams, t he am o u n t left i n t he pac kage a ft erpos t al inspector s r eplaced m ostof the cocaine w i t h a sham subst ance. W e hav e c a re f u lly c o n sid e re d e a c h o f

th e se c o n ten tio n s a n d f in d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 5 I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r D o lls o n ’s p ro s e c u tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he appe al fr om a fi nal deci s i on of a di s t r i ctcour tpur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 and overt he appe al fr om a s ent enc e im p os ed undert he Sent enci ng R ef o rm A ct of

1 9 8 4 p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v ie w s a s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220, 261 ( 2005)
. T he part ychal l engi ng t he sent ence has t he bur den of pr ovi ng
u n re a so n a b len e ss ; re v iew is h ig h ly d e f e re n tial, “ th e trial c o u rt b e in g in th e b e st p o sitio n to d e te rm in e th e a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e p a rt i c u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e .” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). II I. A n a ly sis T he gover nm ent ar gues t he sent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t– 192 m ont hs on C o u n t1 a n d 9 6 m o n t h s , t o ru n c o n c u r r e n t l y , o n C o u n t2 – i s b o t h p r o c e d u r a l l y f a u l t y, beca us e i ns uffi ci ent l y j us t i fi ed, and s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e, beca us e D ol l s on coul d not
s how anynot ew or t hym i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t hat coul d j us t i fy s ent enci ng hi m – a ca r eer offe ndert w i ce o v er
– to h al f of the mi ni m um G ui del i nes r ange a ppl i cabl e t o hi m ( 360D o ll s on’ s i ni t i al bas e off ens e l evel w oul d have be en 26 ( atl eas t500 g butl es s t han 2 3 kg of coc ai ne) underU
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 7) , butw as r ai s ed t o 37 undert he ca r eeroffe nder pr ovi s i on, U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1. D ol l s on’ s s econd c ountof convi cti o n , C o untI I ( us e of a comm uni cat i on fac i l i ty in v iolati on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 843 ( b) carr i es a pena l t yof up t o ei ght y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand a f i ne up t o $2 50, 000. T her e i s no di s agr eementr egar di ng t he se n ten c e f

o r th is le ss se rio u s v io latio n , w h ich D o llso n w a s o rd e re d to se rv e c o n c u rre n tlyw ith th e lo n g e r s e n te n c e . 6 m o n th s to lif

e ). See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) ( enumer at i ng fac t or s t o be consi d ere d at
se n ten c in g ). W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u r t’ s e x p la n a tio n f o r its

r eas ons w as i ns uffi ci entform eani ngful r evi ew , and there for e w e w i l l r emand for
re s e n te n c in g . T h e sta tu to ryra n g e a p p lica b le to D o llso n ’s p o ss e ss io n c o n v ictio n w a s te n y e a rs to l i fe. 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) , ( vi i i )
. B eca us e D ol l s on qual i fi ed as a car eeroffe nder underU
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 1 and w as s ubj ect t o a s t atut or y m axi m um s ent ence of l i fe i n pr i s on, his base offense l evel w as 37 ; un der t he appli cable 20 04 S entenci ng G uidel i nes, t hat offense l evel , combi ned w i t h D ol l s on’ s cr i m i nal cat egoryof V I , t r ans l at ed i nt o a G ui del i nes r ange of 360 m ont hs t o l i fe. 3 T he governm ent , r efe r r i ng t o D ol l s on’ s l engthy cr i m i nal r ecor d ( w hi ch i ncl uded an at t empt ed murde rperpetr at ed byfi r i ng s i x s hot s atan unarm ed man, t w o of them w hi l e the

v ictim lay on th e f

lo o r, an d a n u m b e r o f

d ru g o f f e n se s), a sk e d f

o r a se n ten c e su b sta n tially

a b o v e th e m in im u m G u id e lin e ra n g e . It arg u e d D o llso n ’s r e c o rd d o c u m e n ted th a t h e c o u ld notbe re habi l i t at ed, as D ol l s on, w ho w as t hen i n hi s m i d- t hi r t i es , had pr oven unabl e t o s t ay7

outof j ai l form or e than tw o or t hr ee y ear s at a t i m e, even a ft erbei ng i ncar cer at ed over13 y e a rs f o r a tte m p te d m u rd e r. D ol l s on conce ded thatt he 10- y ears t atut or ym i ni m um appli ed t o hi m butas ked the
cour tt o i m pos e j us tt hat s en tence, and t o departs i gni fi cant l yfr om t he G ui del i nes . T he argum ent w as based on D oll son’s fam i l y t i es and respon si bil i t i es, his l ack o f gu i dan ce as a y out h, hi s eff

or t s atr ehabi l i t at i on , and the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed di s par i t i es caus ed by th e c a re e r of

f e n d e r gu id e lin e , w h ich h a s b e e n f o u n d to h a v e a d isp a ra te im p a c t o n m in o rity d e f e n d a n ts b e c a u s e o f

th e in c lu s io n o f

d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c ri m e s in th e c a lc u la tio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound the governm enthad p rov ed the pr i orconvi ct i ons t hat q u a lifie d D o llso n a s a c a re e r c rim in a l, an d it se n te n c e d D o lls o n to 1 9 2 m o n th s o n C o u n t I and 96 mont hs , t o run concurr ent l y , on C ount 2, fol l ow ed by ei ghty ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. B yw ayof expl anat i on, i ts t at ed that“[t ] he s ent ence w as i m pos ed i n consid era t i on of the advi s or ygu ideline range , as w el l as t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n Sect i on 3553( a) , ” butdi d not f u rt h e r a rt ic u la te its re a s o n in g . D ol l s on ar gues t hatt he courts uffi ci ent l y cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s ; al t hough th e c o u rt d id n o t su m m a riz e its re a so n in g a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g o r f u lly expl ai n how i thad w ei ghed the fa ct or s , a numberof comm ent s i tm ade dur i ng t he hea r i ng i t s el f r efl ecti t s pr eocc upat i on w i t h t hem. Fori nstan ce , t he courtr epea t edl ynot ed the

r e l e v a n c e o f

t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s a n d r e a c t e d t o t h e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u me n t s , r e f l e c t i n g t h a ts o me of the cr i m es i n D ol l s on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw er e mo re than t en y ear s ol d and thatt he8

G ui del i nes r ange tr i gger ed by D ol l s on’ s s t atus as a ca r eeroffe nderw as s i gni fi cant l yhi gher th a n th e ra n g e th a t w o u ld a p p ly o th e rw is e . W e do notdoubtt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgave thought ful cons i der at i on t o t he § 3553( a) f a c to rs. B e c a u se it d id n o t f u llya rticu late its re a so n in g o r e x p lai n th e r e lev a n c e o f its obs erva ti ons , how ever , w e ar e l eftw i t h an i nadequa t e r ecor d t o det erm i ne w hi ch of the f a c to rs p re d o m in a ted in th e C o u rt’s d e c isio n -m a k in g p ro c e ss a n d w hy
. M ean in g f u l ap p e llate
re v iew f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n sh o u ld n o t b e b a se d o n a n a p p e llate c o u rt’s a ttem p t to
r econs t ructt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eas oni ng on t he b asis o f comm ent s m ade thr oughoutt he
s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . See R ita v. U n itedS tates, --- S

. C t. --- - , N o. 06- 5754, 2007 W L 1772146, at*12- 13 ( J une 21, 2007) ( not i ng t hat “[b] y ar t i cul at i ng r eas ons , even i f br i ef, t he s ent enci ng jud g e . . . assu res rev iew ing co u rt s . . . that the sen tenc ing p roc ess is a re aso n ed p roc ess” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 -7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t c o u rt s “ sh o u ld
o b se rv e th e r e q u ire m e n t to sta te a d e q u a te r e a so n s f o r a se n ten c e o n th e re c o rd so th a t th is

cour tcan e ngage i n m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew ”) . T hus , w e bel i eve t hat “[m]or e el abor at i on i s nece s s ary ” an d w il l rem and forful l er
a rt ic u la tio n o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s w e ig h in g o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 571 ( 2007) ( en banc )
. A s w e al r eadynot ed i n G r i er , a r emand under t hes e ci r cumst ance s does notnece s s ar i l y s ugges t t hat t he sent ence i t s el f w as unr eas onabl e; “w e do as k, how ever , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai n i t s deci s i on on t he r ecor d. ” I d. at572. B eca us e of the i ns uffi ci encyof t h e r ecor d forr evi ew , w e do notr eac h t heI n t he r ece nt l yi s s ued opi ni on i n R ita , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t co u rts o f a p p e a ls 4 m ayado pt a pr esum pti on of reasonab l eness w ith re spectt o w i t hin- G uidel i nes sent ences. R ita , --- S
. C t. --- -, 2 0 0 2 W L 1 7 7 2 1 4 6 at *6
. T h e c o m p an ion ca se, C l ai bor ne v. U ni t ed St at es , N o . 0 6 -56 1 8 , w a s to c o n side r w h ethe r sen tenc es o u tsi d e the G u idelines req u ir e s peci al j us t i fi cat i on butw as decl ar ed moot due t o t he dea t h of pet i t i o n er C lai b or ne. T he Supr eme C our t w i l l cons i der t he i s s ue nextT erm i n U n ited S ta tes v . G a ll , N o. 06- 7649. T he D i s t r i ctC our tneed nothol d t he s ent enci ng unt i l t he i s s uance of the dec i s i on i n G a ll. 9 G o v ern m en t’ s co n tention that the sen tenc e w as a ctua ll yu n rea so n ab le i n v iew o f D o ll so n ’s
cr i m i nal pas t . T hi s ar gum entr ai s es t he di ffi cul tand as y et uns et t l ed quest i on of the r el at i ve im p o rt a n c e o f th e c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ra n g e w ith in th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n a lysis
. See K i ng , 454 F. 3d at 195- 96 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( a s i gni fi cantdi ver gence fr om t he G ui del i nes “does

n o t m a k e [ a s e n te n c e ] p e r s e u n re a s o n a b le ” ; h o w e v e r, “ B ooker gi ves l i t t l e di r ect i on as t o how
c lo s e ly s e n ten c in g c o u rts a re to a d h e re to th e f o rm e rlym a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s” ); C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332 ( “[a ] s ent ence t hatfal l s w i t hi n the gui del i nes r ange i s m or e l i kel yt o be
rea so n ab le th an o n e o u tsi d e the g u idelines ran g e” ). 4 I V . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s et for t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m i n par tand vac at e i n par tt he j udgm ent of the D i s t r i ctC our t , and r emand forr es ent enci ng.