NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT
No. 09- 2656
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v . RO DN EY ST EF EK ,Appe l l ant
On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e Western D istrict o f P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 2- 08- c r - 00436- 001) Di s tr i c t Judge : Hon. Gus t ave Di am ond
Su bm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Apr i l 13, 2010 BE FO RE : FISHE R, HA RD IMAN and C OWEN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: May

19, 2010)
OP I NI ON
COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge Rodne y St e fe k a ppe a l s the judgm e nt

of the Di s tr i c t

Court s e nt e nc i ng hi m

t o a 151- m onth t e rm

of i m pr i s onm e nt . St e fe k c ont e nds tha t hi s s e nt e nc e i s pr oc e dur a l l y and
s ub s t an t i v e l y

u n r e a s o n ab l e . W e w i l l a f f i rm.Th e 200 8 v er si on of the c ar ee r off

ender provisi on , und er

wh ic h S te fek w as 1 sen ten ced , states th at:

A d efendant is a c ar ee r off ender i f (1) the defendant was at le as t e ightee n y ears old at the ti m e the defend ant c omm itte d the i ns t ant

offe ns e of c onvi c t i on; ( 2) the i ns t ant offe ns e of conv ic ti on is a fel on y

that is ei ther a c ri m e of v iole nce or a controll ed substance off

ense ; and (3) the defend ant has at l e a s t two pr i or fe l ony c onvi c t i ons of e i the r

ac r i m e of violence or a c on tr olle d sub st ance of fense. U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 1( a )
. I t

i s the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de t e rm i na t i on r e gar di ng the thi r d fa c t or th at is at issu e o n ap p eal. 2 I . BA CK GR OU ND S tef ekw as in d ictedf

o r o n e co u n t o f

b an kro b b ery , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C
. § 2 1 1 3 (a). A t a co m

b in edp lea an dsen ten cin g h earin g , h e p lead edg u ilty to th e so le
co u n t o f th e in d ictm en t. The pr e - s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e port ( “ PSR” ) wa s pr e par e d i n a dvanc e of the
com bined h eari ng . The PS R ind ic at ed that Stefek qu al ifie d to b e s ente nced as a “ care er of fend er ” pursuant t o U nite d S tate s Sente ncing G uideli ne (“ U.S.S.G.”) § 4 B1 .1(a ). In 1
sup p o rt o f

th is d esig n atio n , th e P S R listedtw o p rio r crim es o f v io len ce. T h e f

irst w as a 19 90 Oh i o s t a t e c on vi c t i onfo r a gg r avat e d a s s aul t

wi th f i r e arm s pe c i fi c a t i on . He
re ce ived a t er

m of im pris on m ent of eightee n m on ths plus an add it ional c on se cuti ve te rm of thr e e y e ar s for

the fi r e arm

s pe c i fi c a t i on. He wa s r e l e a s e d on Augus t 2, 1994. The
se cond was a

20 01 Oh io st at e c on vict ion f or robb er y . The desi gn at ion as a

care er of fend er incr ea se d S te fek’s bas e off ense le vel from

21 to 29 and incre as ed his c ri m inalA sente ncing cou rt m ay no t c on si der s ente nces se rved fo r pri or cr im es of violence 2 th at f all o u tsid e th e f

if teen -y ear statu te o f

lim itatio n s. See U. S. S. G. § 4A1. 2( e ) ( 1) ( “ [C]ount any pr i or s e nt e nc e of i m

pr i s onm e nt

e xc e e di ng one y e ar

and one m onth, whe ne ve r i m pos e d, tha t

r e s ul t e d i n the de fe ndant be i ng i nc ar c e r a t e d dur i ng any part of such fiftee n-y ear per iod.”)
. 3 hi s t ory c a t e gory fr om V t o VI
. The s e i nc r e a s e s r e s ul t e d i n agui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r ange of 15 1 to 1 88 m on ths of im pris on m ent. Had h e not been desi gn at ed as a c ar ee r off ender, h e w o u ldh av e f

aceda g u id elin es sen ten cin g ran g e o f 7 0 to 9 7 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m en t. St e fe k obje c t e d t o the PSR c ha l l e ngi ng i nc l us i on of the 1990 c onvi c t i on on the gr ound tha t

the Ohi o s t a t e c ourt

i nc orr e c t l y

s e nt e nc e d hi m

t o c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e s , and ha d the c ourt

not e rr e d, thi s s e nt e nc e woul d fa l l out s i de the fi ft e e n- y e ar s t a t ut e of li m it at ions fo r the care er of fend er prov is ion. Stefek contended that a s ente nce that was 2
u n law f u lly im p o sedco u ldn o t serv e as th e b asis o f h is d esig n atio n as a career o f f en d er. Pr i or t o s e nt e nc i ng, the Di s tr i c t Court i s s ue d aMe m or andum

Or de r and Te nt a t i ve Find ings and Rulings concluding that Stefek’s base of

fense l evel was 29 and his c ri m inal h isto ry categ o ry w as V I. A d d itio n ally , th e D istrict C o u rt issu edan A d d en du m to Te nt a t i ve Fi ndi ngs and Rul i ngs whi c h r e je c t e d St e fe k’ s c ha l l e nge t o the PSR on the grou nd that

he could n ot coll at er al ly

atta ck his 199 0 state court s ente nce during f eder al
sen ten cin g p ro ceed in g s. A t sen ten cin g , S tef

ekb eg an b y

arg u in g th at th e D istrict C o u rt co u ld , in its disc re ti on , var

y do wn ward fromthe guideli nes s ente nce by disr egar ding the c ar ee r
o f f en d er d esig n atio n . T h e D istrict C o u rt ex p lain edth at it h adru ledo n th at issu e in its4

Ad dend um

and the Distri ct

Co urt then ado pted the finding s of the Mem orandu m Order
an dA d d en du m . S tef

ekag ain arg u edth at it w o u ldb e u n f air an du n reaso n ab le to in crease his s ente nce bas ed on the 199 0 con vict ion. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt high li gh te d S te fek’s h isto ry o f co n tin u o u s v io latio n s f

ro m ag e th irteen to th e tim e o f h is b an kro b b ery

arrest,
no ti ng that

violence was i nv olved in sever al inst ance s. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt then explai ned th at: [W]h ether or not we have som e form al desi gn at ion o f that a s

care er cr im inal or we do n’t have a fo rm al desi gn at ion o f it, as a m atter o f

sub stan ce th e f

act o f th e m atter is th at it ap p ears to the Court tha t thi s De fe ndant

i s ac onfi rm e d r e c i di vi s t

and th at w h en ev er h e is o u t am o n g th e p ub lic h e co mm its crim es. The [PSR] i ndi c a t e s tha t . So tha t ’ s wha t y ou s houl d be a ddr e s s i ng. (A. 84.) To furthe r

e m pha s i z e the i s s ue for

de fe ns e c ouns e l , the Di s tr i c t Court e xpl a i ne d: Fo rget abou t t he gu idel ines fo r a

m om ent. Let’ s t al k abo ut - - l e t ’ s pr e t e nd tha t

the gui de l i ne s don’ t

e xi s t and wha t we have here today

befo re - - st anding befo re the Cou rt is an i ndi vi dua l whos e l a t e s t

c r i m e wa s ac r i m e of - - as e r i ous crim e o f v io len ce, to w it, b an kro b b ery , an dw h ich f o llo w s a hi s t ory of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty

da t i ng fr om

a ge 13. Yo u h ave the [P SR ] in f

ront of y ou and there have been few c a s e s tha t have c om e be for e thi s Court i n the c our s e of 30 y e ar s I have be e n on the be nc h whe r e aDe fe ndant ha s ha d a less co n sisten t p attern o f

crim in al activ ity , w h ich seem s to i ndi c a t e c onc l us i ve l y

tha t the De fe ndant

i s ar e c i di vi s t

and, th eref o re, th at th e C o u rt in d eterm in in g an ap p ro p riate s e nt e nc e unde r

3553( a ) of Ti t l e 18 s houl d c ons i de r a s the m os t s i gni fi c ant

fa c t or the ne e d of the s e nt e nc e t o pr ot e c t the pu blic , t o incapaci tate the Defendant from his cr im inal5 a c t i vi ty and pr e yi ng on the publ i c . Tha t ’ s wha t I vi e w t o be thi s s i t ua t i on. No w, y ou conv ince m e that that i s wrong and n ot that we’r e de a l i ng wi th s om e unr e a l i s t i c art i fi c i a l de s i gna t i on by the f ram ers o f th e g u id elin es. (A . 8 5 -8 6 .) S tef ekarg u edth at all o f

h is p rio r co n v ictio n s ex cep t f o r th e tw o th at qu alif

y h im for c ar e e r offe nde r s t a t us we r e the ft s and tha t

i f gi ve n the l owe r

s e nt e nc e , he woul d be f if ty y ears o ldw h en released , at w h ich p o in t, it is b eliev edth at recid iv ism g reatly de c r e a s e s . The gi s t

of hi s ar gum e nt

wa s tha t e xc l udi ng the 1990 c onvi c t i on, a l l tha t he has i s a hist ory of cr im es of

theft, and n o m atte r how exte nsive, a c ri m inal hist ory of that nature shou ld no t m er it

the e nh ance m ent that t

he PS R sug gest s. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt
r e je c t e d St e fe k’ s ar gum e nt s , i ndi c a t i ng tha t i t wa s not m ove d t o m odi fy

i t s Me m or andum Order or Add endu m . ( A. 98 .) Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt disc usse d S te fek’s l engthy cr im inal hi s t or y andi nd i c a t e d that

he “ do e s s ho w a

pr op e ns i ty

t o c om m i t vi ol e nt c r i m e s . ” ( A. 99. ) The Di s tr i c t

Court s e nt e nc e d hi m

t o a151- m onth t e rm

of i m pr i s onm e nt , the l ow end o f the advisory

gu idel ines rang e. I I . STANDARD OF REV I EW Th is Co urt r evie ws the proce du ra l and substantive r ea sonablenes s of a distri ct
co u rt’s sen ten ce f

o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n . Se e Uni te d States v . Le v i ns on , 543 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d Ci r . 2008)
. W e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e for s ubs t ant i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s t o de t e rm i ne “whether t

he final s ente nce, wh er ever it m ay li e within the perm is si ble s tatutory rang e,6

was pre m is ed up on approp ri at e and ju dici ou s c on si derati on of the r el evant fact ors. ” Un ited States v. Schw ei tz er , 4 5 4 F .3 d1 9 7 , 2 0 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). “I f t her e ar e no proced ural err ors, ou r subst anti ve revi ew i s hi gh l y defe rent i al and w e w i l l affir m ‘unl ess
no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng cour t w oul d have i m pos ed t he s ame s ent ence on t hat par t i cul ar defe ndant for t he r eas ons t he di s t r i ct cour t pr ovi ded. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. K i ng , - - - F. 3d

- - - , 2010 W L 1729733, *15 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 )). I I I . DI SCUSSI ON Af te r Un ited States v. Bo oker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , di s tr i c t c ourt s a dhe r e t o a thre e- st ep process wh en se ntenci ng defend ants . Fir st , they m ust “ ca lc ulat e a

defend ant’ s Gu idel ines se ntence prec is el y as they wo uld h ave before Bo oker .” Un ited States v. Gu nter , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( c i t i ng Uni te d States v . Ki ng , 454 F. 3d 187, 19 6 (3d Cir. 20 06 )) . Sec on d, they m ust “ fo rm al ly

rul[e] on the m otions of

bo th part ie s and stat[e] on the r ec ord w hether they ar e granting a depart

ure and ho w that departure affects the Guideli nes c al culati on , and tak[ e] into ac coun t [ou r] Circ uit’ s pre - Bo oker case law, wh ic h con ti nu es to have advisory fo rc e. ” Id . “F in ally , th ey are req u iredto ‘ex ercise [] [the i r ] di s c r e t i on by

c ons i de r i ng the r e l e vant

[§ 3553( a ) fa c t or s ’ ] i n s e tt i ng the
s e nt e nc e the y

i m pos e r e gar dl e s s whe the r

i t var i e s fr om

the s e nt e nc e c a l c ul a t e d unde r the Gu idel ines .” Id . (in tern al citatio n s o m itted ). Stefek contends that

his s ente nce i s proce du ra ll y un re as on able beca

use the Distri ct7

Court e rr e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r ange by

i nc l udi ng the 1990 c onvi c t i on i n de s i gna t i ng hi m

a s ac ar e e r

offe nde r . St e fe k c onc e de s tha t the s e nt e nc e i m

pos e d for hi s 1990 c onvi c t i on e xpi r e d on Augus t 2, 1994, whi c h wa s wi thi n the s t a t ut e of li m it at ions; how ever , Ste fek con te nd s that the se ntence was unlawfu ll y im po se d and had th e O h io state co u rt f

o llo w edth e law , h is sen ten ce w o u ldh av e ex p iredo u tsid e th e statu te of li m it at ions and w ou ld no t have bee n included in the care er of fend er ca lc ulat ion, wh ic h
wo uld h ave r es ulte d in h im no t bei ng desi gn at ed a c ar ee r off ender. Th is contenti on la cks m er it . The Distri ct Co urt r ejec te d S te fek’s vari ance
ar gum e nt i n the Adde ndum

i n de t a i l , c orr e c t l y

e xpl a i ni ng that

de fe ndant s c annot
co llaterally

attackstate co u rt sen ten ces in f ed eral sen ten cin g p ro ceed in g s. See Unite d States v . Galv an , 453 F.3d73 8, 74 1 (6th C ir . 200 6) (“ E ven i f G al van’ s i nt er pr et at i on of [ s t a t e s e n t e n c i n g l a w] i s cor r ect , how ever , t he di s t r i ct cour t at s ent enci ng need not coll at eral l y revi ew G al van ’s pri or sent ences. ”); Un ited States v. Sa ya , 247 F. 3d 929, 940 ( 9th Ci r . 2001) ( r e

je c t i ng de fe ndant ’ s c ha l l e nge t o apr i or s t a t e s e nt e nc e and a ffi rm i ng th e D istrict C o u rt’s d esig n atio n o f d ef en d an t as a career o f

f en d er); see a lso U .S .S .G . § 4A1. 2, c mt . n. 6 ( “ W i th r e s pe c t t o the c urr e nt

s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng, thi s gui de l i ne and
c omm e nt ary

do not c onfe r upon the de fe ndant

any r i ght t o a tt a c k c ol l a t e r a l l y

apr i or
co n v ictio n o r sen ten ce b ey o n dan dsu ch rig h ts o th erw ise reco g n izedin law . . . .”). St e fe k a l s o a s s e rt s tha t

hi s s e nt e nc e i s pr oc e dur a l l y unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the D istrict C o u rt ig n o redh is arg u m en t f o r a d o w n w ardv arian ce an df ailedto ad d ress w h y

it8

rej ectedth at arg u m en t. C o n trary to th is assertio n , th e D istrict C o u rt ad equ ately ad d ressedth e v arian ce arg u m en t du rin g sen ten cin g . T h e D istrict C o u rt ex p lain edth at it ha d a l r e a dy

r ul e d on the var i anc e ar gum e nt ba s e d s ol e l y

on the 1990 c onvi c t i on. The Distri ct Co urt i nstr

ucte d S te fek to add re ss the t otal it y of his c ri m inal hist ory

and h ow that shou ld affect his s ente nce, rather than fo cusi ng sole ly

on the 199 0 con vict ion. Stefek
m o d if iedh is arg u m en t slig h tly , b u t th e p rim ary f o cu s rem ain edo n th e 1 9 9 0 co n v ictio n . In rej ectin g h is v arian ce arg u m en t, th e D istrict C o u rt ex p lain edth at S tef ekf ailedto pers uade it

to m od ify

it s Mem orandu m

Order and Ad dend um

(A. 98) and that Ste fek f ailedto n eg ate th e ef

f ects o f h is th irty -y ear crimi n al h isto ry , w h ich sh o w s “a p ro p en sity to comm it

violent c ri m es ” ( A. 99 ). Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt re ferr ed to the PSR , which se t f o rth S tef ek ’s ex ten siv e crim in al h isto ry , sp an n in g n early th irty y ears. Fi na l l y , St e fe k c ont e nds tha t hi s s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t ant i ve l y unr e a s onabl e a s the Di s tr i c t Court i gnor e d c e rt a i n fa c t or s i t i s r e qui r e d t o c ons i de r

unde r § 3553( a ) and im p ro p erly attach edg reater w eig h t to certain o th er f acto rs. In p articu lar, S tef ekasserts th a t th e D i s tr i c t

C o u rt i mp r o p e r l y

g av e g r e a t e r

w e i g h t t o c o n c e rn s o f

r e c i d i v i s m, dete rr ence , andprotec ti on of the pub li c ( § 3 55 3(a) (2)( B), ( C)), wh il e i gn oring the need to av o idu n w an tedsen ten cin g d isp arities am o n g sim ilarly situ atedd ef

en d an ts (§ 3 5 5 3 (a)(6 )). Thi s c ont e nt i on, t oo, l a c ks m e r i t . The Di s tr i c t Court i m pos e d as e nt e nc e a t

the lo w en do f

th e ad v iso ry

g u id elin es, w h ich is reaso n ab le, g iv en th e circu m stan ces o f th is9

ca se . For the pas t t

hirty y ears , when n ot incarc er at ed, Ste fek rare ly went m ore than a few
m on ths wi tho ut

c om m i tt i ng ac r i m e . Th e PS R i nd i c a t e s that i n a dd i t i ont o the two
cr im es of violence up on wh ic h the care er of fend er desi gn at ion w as base d, Stefek was
co n v ictedo f

o th er crim es in w h ich th reats, v io len ce, o r th e u se o f w eap o n s w ere alleg ed
. It w as n o t u n reaso n ab le to sen ten ce S tef ekas a career o f

f en d er. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

did n ot er

r i n d ir ec ti ng coun se l t o add re ss re ci divism , which li kely was the m ost t

roub li ng fact or in dete rm ining the approp ri at e s ente nce. Th e Dis tr ic t Co urt s tate d that Ste fek’s c ri m inal re cord was one of the m ost e xtensi ve that

it had
en co u n teredin th irty

y ears o n th e b en ch an dreaso n ab ly ask edco u n sel to ad d ress its
concerns r egar ding re ci divism , det er re nce, and p ub li c s afety . Moreover, the Dis tr ic t Court ’ s de c i s i on t o s e nt e nc e St e fe k a t the l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne s r ange a c c ount s for
s e nt e nc i ng di s par i t i e s am ong s i m i l ar l y s i t ua t e d de fe ndant s . The r e i s nothi ng i n the
re cord to sugg es t t

hat this s ente nce, wh ic h is at t he bo tt om

of the a dv is ory

gu idel ines
ran g e, is u n reaso n ab le. Cf. Unite d S tates v . Coo per , 437 F. 3d 324, 331 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) (ex p lain in g th at “ i t i s l es s l i kel y t hat a w i t hi n- gui del i nes s ent ence , as oppos ed t o an
o u tsid e -g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , w ill b e u n re a so n a b le ”), a b ro g a ted o n o th er gro u n d

s b y G a ll
v. Un ited States , 552 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 ). I V . CONCLUSI ON F o r th e reaso n s set f

o rth ab o v e, w e w ill af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.