2004 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
1-23-2004 

# U S A v . B el l a m y 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 n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2203

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Be l l a m y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1075. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1075NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2203
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. SE AN B EL LA MY aka RED Se an B ell am y, Appellant App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Crimi nal No. 97-cr -00474-6) District Cou rt Judge: H onorab le Joseph A . Greena way, Jr.
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

January13, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, R EN DE LL and AL DI SE RT , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed January23, 2004 )
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. On October 26, 1998, after pleadi ng guilt

y t o one count of poss ession wit h intent to dis tri bute cocai ne and heroi ne, Sean Bell amy was sent enced to 78 months in pri son,2

followed by5 year s of supervi sed rel ease. Due t o his subs tanti al ass ist ance to the autho rities, Be llamy rece ived a senten ce sign ifican tly lower th an the low est end of h is sentenci ng guideli ne range. His supervi sed rel ease began on Apri l 26, 2002, and he subsequently violated the t erms of his relea se. He pled gui lty to one viol ation and was senten ced o n M arch 2 4, 200 3, to a 2 6-m onth term o f inca rceratio n. H e app eals his sentence , argui ng that i t exceeded t he upper end of the recommended range wit hout the Distri ct Court’ s givi ng noticeof its intent to do so or s uffici ently explai ning it s sente ncing decisi on. The District

Court had jurisdi ction ove r thi s case under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 358 3( e) , a nd o urapp el la te ju ri sdi ct io n aris es pur suantto 28 U. S. C. § 129 1 an d 18 U.S .C. § 37 42( a) . We wil l a ffirm. As we write sole ly for the parti es, we willrecite onlythose fac ts re levant to the issue be fore us. After his initial gui lty plea i n 1998, Bell amy cooper ated with the authori ties , causi ng the Government t o request a downward departure f or his s ubstantial assis tance pur suant t o § 5K1.1 of the Unit ed State s Sentenci ng Guideline s. Respect ing that request, the sentencing j udge depart ed from the r ange prescribed for Bel lamy by the gui delin es – 140 to 1 75 m ont hs – and imp ose d a s ente nce of 7 8 m ont hs’ im priso nm ent. While servi ng that term, Bell amy ent ered a subs tance abus e program run bythe Bureau of Pri son s, le adi ng t o an add itio nal22- mont h r edu ctio n i n hi s s entenc e. Thus , Be ll amy ultim ately se rve d 56 mo nth s, an d be gan his te rm o f su per vise d re leas e on Ap ril 26 , 200 2. Ac cord ing to th e U nited S tates Pr obatio n O ffice , Bellam y comm itted six se parate3

vio latio ns o f the term s of his s upe rvisi on w ithin app rox ima tely fiv e m ont hs o f his relea se. A warrant was iss ued based on thos e violations , sever al of which i nvolved addi tional dru g ac tivity, an d B ellam y app eare d be for e the Dis trict C our t aga in o n M arch 10, 2 003
. He ente red a gu ilty plea to o ne o f the six v iolat ion s – f ailur e to s ubm it to d rug treat me nt, a Grade C violation. Thi s viol ation was bas ed on Bellamy ’s fai lure to adhere t o the rul es of an outpatient s ubstance abuse program, in which he had to parti cipat e as a condi tion of his release. After not attending nine of the program’s weekly counseling sessi ons, Be llam y wa s dis cha rge d fr om the p rog ram . Following hi s guil ty plea, Bellamy was sentenced for the viol ation on March 24, 2003. Chapter

7 of the gui deline s, which l ist s poli cy s tate ments rel ated t o sentenci ng follow ing the revo cation of su perv ised re lease, p rovid ed fo r a reco mm ende d ran ge of 7 to 13 months. At t

he sentenc ing heari ng, the Government requested another reducti on under § 5K 1.1 d ue to the f act th at B ellam y had onc e ag ain o ffe red assis tanc e to th e au tho rities. The Probati on Office, however, recommended that a sentenc e in exces s of the recommended range was appropriatefor three reasons : Fir st, Bellamyhad recei ved a substantialdownw ard departure at his i nitialsentencing; second, his conti nued drug use call ed into que sti on the si ncerit y of hi s tre atment eff

orts; and third, his conduct re flect ed his i nabili ty to adjus t to community supe rvisi on. The District Court agree d with the
reco mm end ation of th e Pr oba tion Of fice and sen tenc ed B ellam y to 26 mo nth s in p rison
. W e rev iew de n ovo a dis trict c our t’s in terp retat ion of a gui delin e, United States v.4

Butch , 256 F .3d 17 1, 177 (3d C ir. 2001 ), and w e revie w a district co urt’s de cision to
exc eed the s ente ncin g ra nge pre scrib ed b y § 7B 1.4 f or a bus e of disc retio n. United States v. Schwegel , 126 F .3d 55 1, 555 (3d C ir. 1997 ); see also United States v. Bla ckston , 940 F.2d 877, 894 ( 3d Cir. 1991) (noti ng that unde r such a st andard we will only disturb a sentence if it is “plainly unreason able”). It i s well es tabli shed in our court’ s precedent , as wellas that of other c ourts of appeals, that the po licy statements included in C hapter 7 of the Gu idelines M anual are
me rely ad viso ry, and do n ot b ind sen tenc ing cou rts as actu al gu ideli nes wo uld
. Schwegel , 126 F.3d at 553 ; Blackston , 940 F .2d at 8 93; see als o, e. g. , Un ited Sta tes v. H ale , 107 F.3d 526 (7th C ir. 1997 ); United States v. Cohen , 99 F.3d 69 ( 2d Cir. 1996) ; United States v. Hurst , 78 F.3d 482 ( 10th Cir. 1996). Alt hough Bellamy is cor

rect to note that the S enten cing C om missio n exp ressed its intent th at the C hapte r 7 po licy stateme nts would only be the fi rst s tep in a process t

hat would ult

imatel y l ead to the promulgation of bin din g re voc ation gui delin es, see U. S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Manu al ch . 7 , p t. A, intro duc tory cm t. 3(a ) (20 02) , the C om mis sion has not yet mo ved beyo nd t his f irst ste p. Thu s, abse nt any of ficial ac tion by the Co mm ission, w e are le ft w ith the p olicy statem ents andour la w in te rp re ti ng them. Applyi ng our exis ting vi ew of Chapter 7 to t his cas e, we must concl ude that the Distri ct Court was not

required to noti fy Bel lamy of its intent

to impose a s entence t

hat
exce eded the ran ge rec om men ded in § 7B 1.4. A lthoug h no tice w ould be req uired if this1 Unless and until t he Sentenci ng Commission take s measures to trans form the Ch apter 7 policy state men ts into b inding guid elines, w e rem ain bo und by our p reced ents vi ewi ng Ch apter7 as a s etof a dvi sory pr ovi si ons th atdo n otcar rywith them t

he s ame procedural protections t hat accompany the guidelines applicabl e at initial sentenci ngs.

5 case invol ved a departure from an act ual guide line r ange for purpos es of ini tialsentenci ng und er C hap ter 5 of th e G uid eline s M anu al, Burns v. Unit ed State s , 501 U.S. 129, 138 (1991), this is not

such a depart

ure. Unli ke the ranges call ed for byChapter 5, the range s listed in C hapte r 7 are n ot bind ing o n the D istrict Co urt. A ccord ingly, we conc lude th at a decisi on to exceed t

hat range cannot be equated to an “upward departure, ” and will not inv oke the s am e pr oce dur al pr otec tion s tha t wo uld acc om pan y such a de par ture . Cf. Blackston , 940 F.2d at 894 (holding that onlygeneral, rather than specific, reasons must be state d w hen a cour t strays from the C hapte r 7 ran ge). A s Be llamy him self acknowl edg es , o th ercou rt s of app eal s ha ve appl ie d thi s r eas oni ng i n r eac hi ng the s ame
con clus ion
. See, e. g. , Un ited Sta tes v. G arcia , 323 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir . 2003) (holdi ng that no not

ice i s necessary when a court exceeds a range re commended by Ch apter 7 ); United States v. Shaw , 180 F .3d 92 0, 922 -23 (8 th Cir. 1 999 ) (sam e); United States v. Burdex , 100 F.3d 882, 885 (10th Cir . 1996) ( same) . In fac t, Bel lamy ha s fail ed to direct our attent

ion to any

case from anycourt t

hat would support his position regardi ng notice , and we have been unabl e to loc ate such a case. 1 Therefore, we conclude that no notice requ ireme nt w as vio lated b y Bellam y’s learning imm ediate ly prior to his sentenci ng hearing t

hat theProbati on Office was recommending a se ntence above t he6

Chapter 7 range. Rega rding the D istrict Court’s explana tion of its sentencing decision, w e are unpersuaded t

hat thesentenci ng judge’s discuss ion was inadequate, and we cannot
con clud e tha t the s ente nce her e is p lainl y unre aso nab le. At senten cing, the D istrict Court listed general reason s for its rejection of bo th the Ch apter 7 rang e and the G overnm ent’s argument i n favor of le niencybased on Bell amy’s assis tance. The sentenci ng judge, who clearly un dersto od th e diff erenc e betw een a typical up wa rd de partur e and a dec ision to exceed a range s uggested i n Chapter 7, expresse d his concerns based on the size of the dow nw ard d epartu re initially gran ted to B ellam y, as well a s Be llamy’s dr ug u se an d his need for treatment . These ar e proper cons iderat ions under

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a )(2) and U.S . Sente ncing Gu ideline s M anua l § 7B 1.4, cm t. n.4 (20 02). A s we have prev iously held, this sort of general statement is all t hat we require when a district court encounters a situation that w arrants a sen tence that fa lls outsid e the p olicy statem ents co ntaine d in Ch apte r 7. Blackston , 940 F.2d at 894. A ccordingly, we c onclude that Bellamy’s sentence , which i s not pl ainly unreasonabl e, was adequatelyexplai ned by t he District Co urt. In li ght of the foregoing, we will AFFIRM the sentence i mposed by t he District Co urt.TO THE CLERK OF COU RT:

Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.

/s/ M arjorie O . Ren dell Circuit Judge