09-1477 -cr

Un i t edSt at es v. Nun ez-Gon za lez UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I NGS BY S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GO VE RNE D BY FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N EL E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i t yof N ew Y or k, on the 9 dayof J une, tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : J ON O. NE WM AN,

CHES TE R J
. S TRAUB, R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges
.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 1477- cr M AR CO AN TON I O N UN EZ- GO NZA LEZ, D ef endant

-Appel lant .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : M IC H A E L A
. Y O U N G (J o y c e C . L o n d o n , on the br i ef ) , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E : K A T H E R I N E PO L K FA I L L A , A s s i s t antU ni t ed S tat es A t t orney( J as on P. W
. H al per i n, A s s i s t ant U n i t e d S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f orPr eet B h ara ra, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yfo r th e S o u thern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.2

A p p ea l fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (R ic h a rd M . B e rm a n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r e n te re d o n J a n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , is A F F IR M E D
. M a rc o A n to n io N u n e z -G o n z a lez p lea d e d g u iltyto con spi racyand att em pt t o d i stri b u te and t o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams or m or e of coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 84 1(a) (1) , 84 1(b)( 1)( A ), and 84 6. S enten c e d p ri ncipal l yt o 1 35 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow end of hi s G ui del i nes r ange, N unez- G onzal ez n o w ap p eal s t he
re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e se n ten c e a n d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n d e c lin in g to re se n ten c e h im
o n re m a n d
. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. N u n ez -G o n za lez, 2 9 5 F
. A p p ’x 47 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). W e
r evi ew N unez- G onzal ez’ s s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 187- 88 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc) , cons i der i ng both “the pr ocedur es us ed t o arr i ve atthe s ent ence ( pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s ) ” and “ the l ength of the s ent ence ( s ubs t ant i ve
r eas onabl enes s ) , ” U ni t ed St at es v. C anova, 485 F. 3d 674, 679 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ; acc or d U ni t ed S t at es v. C avera, 55 0 F
. 3d a t 1 8 9
. In und ert aking t his revi ew , w e assum e t he p art i es’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s an d r ecor d of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas
n e c e s s a ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. M i t i gat i ng R ol e A dj us t m ent Nu n e z - Go n z a l e z s u b mi t s th a ta Gu i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n e rr o ri n f a i l i n g t o g r a n th i m a
m in o r o r m in im a l r o le a d ju stm e n t, se e U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , ren d e rs h is s e n ten c e p ro c e d u ra lly3

u n rea so n a b le. W h il e w e h av e a ck n o w ledg ed so m e a m b igu ityreg ard ing the s tand ard g o v e rn in g o u r r e v ie w o f ro le a d ju s tm e n ts , s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . L a b b e , 5 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 5 n .2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), w e p ro p e rlyre v iew th e d istric t c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c lea r e rro r a n d its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o , s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G o tti, 4 5 9 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 4 9 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A
m i nim al rol e adjustm e n t is w a rr anted for “defen dan t s w ho are pl ai nlyam on g the l east cul pabl e of thos e i nvol ved i n the conduc tof a gr oup. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 2 cmt
. n. 4. A m i nor rol e adjustm ent “appli es t o a d efen dan t. . . w ho i s l ess cul pab l e t han m ostotherpart i ci pan t s, butw hos e r ol e coul d notbe des cr i bed as m i ni m al
. ” I d. § 3 B 1
. 2 cm t. n . 5. I n m aki ng t he “hi ghl yfac t - s peci fi c d e t e rmi n at i on” t o gr antei theradj us t m ent , a di s tr i ctcourtcons i der s s uch fac t or s as “the natur e of the defe ndant ’ s r el at i ons hi p t o otherpart i ci pant s , the i m por t ance of the defenda nt ’ s act i ons t o the succ es s of the ventur e, and the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of the natur e and s cope of the cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R avel o, 370 F. 3d 266, 269- 70 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W i th thes e s t andar ds i n m i nd, w e concl ude that the di s tr i ct court comm i t t ed no err or in d e c lin in g to a w a rd a m iti g a tin g ro le a d ju stm e n t. T h e d istric t co u rt w a s n o t re q u ire d to
acc eptN unez- G onzal ez’ s as s e rt i o n s th a th i s i n v o l v e me n twi th th e d ru g tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acy
w as m ere ly“sp o rad ic an d p eriph era l, ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 25 , o r th at “h is p rese n ce [w as] m o re
so cial th an b u sine ss-related,” id. at 26 ; see U n it ed S tat es v. S h o n u b i, 9 9 8 F
. 2 d 8 4 , 9 0 (2d C ir
. 1993) ( “A s ent enci ng courti s not bound t o acc ept defe ndant ’ s s el f- s ervi ng char act er i zat i ons
o f h i s r o l e i n a n o f

f e n s e . ” ) ; a c c o r d U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1
. 2 c mt . n . 3 ( C)
. I n f a c t , th e r e c o r d s h o ws4

thatN unez- G onzal ez made thr ee tr i ps t o N ew Y or k t o vi s i tJ or ge A r tur o Per ez Cam pos , w ho
w as i nvol ved i n a drug tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acy . D ur i ng the s econd tr i p i n ear l y2003, N unezG onzal ez a ccompani ed a c o- cons pi r at ort o Phi l adel phi a t o col l ect drug pr ocee ds
. D ur i ng t he thi r d tr i p, N unez- G onzal ez de l i ver ed an am o u n t o f m oneyes t i m at ed at$100, 000 t o an in d iv id u a l as so c iate d w ith th e d ru g tra f f ick in g c o n sp ira c y , ac c o m p a n ied a c o -c o n sp ira to r to the B r onx t o p ick u p co ca ine, m ade tw o m or e tr i ps t o Phi l adel phi a t o del i verdrugs , and d ro p p e d o f

f a c a r c o n tain in g a p p ro x im a tely ten k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e in N e w Je rse y . W h ile perhaps i nci pi ent , N unez- G onzal ez’ s i n v o l v e mentw as pl ai nl yi m por t antt o the s ucce s s of the ventur e. E ven i f N unez- G onzal ez’ s confe der at es w er e more i nvol ved i n the drug tr aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e, “a de fenda ntm aynotr ece i ve a mi norr ol e adj us t m ents ol el y beca us e he pl ay ed a l es s err ol e than hi s co- cons pi r at or s ; t o be el i gi bl e fora r educt i on, the def endant ’ s conduct
m us tbe mi noras co m p are d t o the ave r age pa r t i ci panti n s uch a c r i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Je f f e rs, 3 2 9 F .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (a ltera tio n s, in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s, a n d e lli p sis
o m itt e d ). In th is res p e c t, w e h a v e ro u tin e lyu p h e ld th e d e n ial o f m iti g a tin g ro le a d

ju stm e n ts forbr oker s orcour i er s deal i ng i n even r el at i vel ys m al l quant i t i es of drugs . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. I m t i az, 81 F. 3d 262, 265 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a, 920 F. 2d 153, 154- 5 5 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A d a m e s , 9 0 1 F
. 2 d 1 1 , 1 2 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 0 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
w e id e n tifyn o e rro r in th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f a m iti g a tin g ro le a d

ju stm e n t.5

2. C ooper at i on N u n e z -G o n z a lez ’s c o n ten tio n th a t “th e d istric t c o u rt’s e rro n e o u s b e lief th a t itc o u ld notcons i derappel l antN unez- G onzal ez’ s cooper at i on abs ent a § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on byt he g o v e rn m e n t re n d e rs th e se n ten c e u n re a so n a b le,” A p p e llan t’s B r. a t 2 9 , f in d s n o su p p o rt in th e law o r th e re c o rd . A b se n t re c o rd e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g o th e rw ise , w e p re su m e th a t a
s ent enci ng j udge under s t ood hi s s ent enci ng di s cr et i on underU ni t ed St at es v . B o o ker , 543 U
. S. 220 (2005) , and fa i thful l ydi s char ged hi s dutyt o cons i derthe 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) fac t or s , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. L egr os , 529 F. 3d 470, 478 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es
v . K e ller, 5 3 9 F .3 d 9 7 , 1 0 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (d isa v o w in g “ f o rm u laic re q u ire m e n ts” o r “ ro b o tic in c a n tatio n s” to d isc h a rg e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) d u ty ). T h e r e c o rd in th is c a se p ro v id e s n o re a so n to ques t i on thi s pr es um pt i on. T o the cont r ary , J udge B erm an expr es s l ys t at ed, “I acknow l edge the ef for t s of [N unez- G onzal ez] t o cooper at e and have t aken thos e i nt o acc ountnow t w i ce
so fa r . . . . ” D ec em b er 22 , 2 0 0 8 T r. at 1 2
. “A lth o u g h [th e sen tenc ing jud g e] ha d the p o w er,
as l ong as the s ent ence i m pos ed w as r eas onabl e, t o r educe [def endant ’ s ] s ent ence i n l i ghtof

‘ non- 5K cooper at i on’ under18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , [] he w as underno obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de
a n y s u c h b e n e f

i t . ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F e rn a n d e z , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 1 9 , 3 4 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
w e id e n tifyn o p ro c e d u ra l u n re a so n a b len e ss in th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c is io n d e c lin in g to i m pos e a l es s ers ent ence bas ed on N unez- G onzal ez’ s att empt s t o cooper at e w i th t he governm ent . N or can w e concl ude that N unez- G onzal ez’ s 135- m onth s ent ence – the bot t om of the app l i cable G uidel i nes range – i s subst anti vely un reas on able. S ee R i t a v. U nit ed S t at es,T h i s c a s e i s n o ta n a l o g o u s t o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H e rn a n d e z , - - - F
. 3 d
- - - , 2 0 1 0 WL 1 1780364, at*4 ( 2d C i r . 2010) , i n w hi ch w e had va cat ed the s ent ence , r equi r i ng the di s tr i ct courtt o r es ent ence , a ci r cumst ance r equi ri n g consi der at i on of al l fac t or s i dent i fi ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) atthe t i m e of the new s ent ence . 6 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 (2 0 0 7 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 8 9
. 3. Post
- Sent ence R ehabi l i t at i on W e las t re m a n d e d th is c a se to th e d istric t c o u rt f o r th e so le p u rp o se o f a llo w in g it “to
cons i derw hether r es ent enci ng the def endanti s appr opr i at e i n l i ghtof § 3553( a) ’ s axi om t hat
court s s houl d ‘ avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among def endant s w it h s i m i l ar
r ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l ar conduct
. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. N unez- G onzal ez, 295 F. A pp’ x at474. N unez- G onzal ez as s ert s that , on r emand, the di s tr i ct court err ed bynot
cons i der i ng hi s pos t - s ent ence r ehabi l i t at i on and r es ent enci ng hi m acc or di ngl y . W e di s agr ee. O urr emand or derdi d notvaca t e N unez- G onzal ez’ s sen te nce ordi r ectthathe be
r es ent ence d. R ather , i tas ked the di str i ctcourt“t o cons i derw hetherr es ent enci ng t he

1 defe ndanti s appr opr i at e” i n l i ghtof a s i ngl e fa ct or : pos s i bl e s ent enci ng di s par i tyw i th codefe ndant s . I d. S u ch a r emand w as l i m i t ed, notde novo. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. R i gas , 583 F. 3d 108, 115- 16 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui nt i er i , 306 F. 3d 1217, 1228 & n. 6 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). Ind ee d , it w as ak in to that in U n it ed S tat es v . C rosb y , 3 9 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 7 (2d C ir
. 2005) ( r emandi ng for“det erm i nat i on of w hethert o r e s e n t e n c e ” ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) )
. Such
a r emand does notperm i tcons i der at i on of post -sent ence ci r cumst ance s , s uch as
r ehabi l i t at i on, unl es s and unt i l the di s tr i ctcourtdeci des thatr es ent enci ng i s w arr ant ed. See7

id . a t 1 2 0 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . F e rr e ll, 4 8 5 F .3 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 8 -8 9 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). E ven i f the d ist r i ctcourtcoul d have c ons i der ed r ehabi l i t at i on evi dence i n deci di ng
w hethert o r es ent ence defe ndant , w e w oul d i dent i fyno abus e of di s cr et i on i n i t s concl us i on th a t N u n e z -G o n z a lez ’s p o st-s e n ten c e a c tiv iti e s – in c lu d in g lea rn in g to re a d , s p e a k , an d w rite E ng l i sh; ob t ai ning hi s G E D ; w orki ng as a Sp anis h instruct or; part i ci pati ng i n T oast m ast ers ;
a n d c o m p le tin g a n a n g e r m a n a g e m e n t c o u rs e – d id n o t w a rr a n t a re d u c e d s e n te n c e . S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at 189 ( “[W ] e w i l l not s ubs t i tut e ourow n j udgm entfort he d istric t co u rt’s o n th e q u e stio n o f w h a t is su f

f icie n t to m e e t th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) co n sid e ra tio n s in
a n yp a rticu lar c a se . W e w ill in ste a d se t a sid e a d istric t c o u rt’s s u b sta n tiv e d e ter m in a tio n o n ly i n ex ce p ti o n al c as es w her e the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on cannotbe l ocat ed w i thi n the r ange of p erm issi b le de cisi o n s. ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s, cit ati o n , an d em p h asis o m itted)). W e have consi der ed N unez- G onzal ez’ s other ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude that theyar e w i thout m er i t . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM the J anuary27, 2009 or derof the di s tr i ct
c o u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt