2009 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 9-14-2009 

# U SA v . M o ore 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 . 07-1935

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

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 ll anova 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M oor e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 676. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/676T he H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT 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 o. 07- 1935 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant v. CHARLE S EDWA RD M OORE O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- cr - 00025 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2009 B e f o re : S M IT H , C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges a n d T H O M P S O N , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2009) OP I NI ON2

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. C har l es M oor e pl eade d gui l t yt o a one c ounti nform at i on thatchar ged hi m w i th t ax evas i on, i n vi ol at i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7201. T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ecomm ended a se n ten c e th a t in c lu d e d a n 1 8 - to 2 4 - m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt, h o w e v e r, s e n te n c e d M o o re to a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o f 5 y e a rs o f

p ro b a tio n , a $25, 000 fi ne, and $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . T he G overnm entfi l ed a t i m el yappea l c h a l l e n g i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f M o o r e ’ s s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. I n a s mu c h a s we wr i t e p r i ma r i l yf o rth e p a rt i e s , wh o a r e f a mi l i a rwi t h th i s c a s e , we need notr eci t e addi t i onal fac tual orpr ocedur al backgr ound. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e Go v e r n me n t ’ s a p p e a l u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( b ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. W e fi r s tr evi ew M oor e’ s s ent ence fors i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or , then for s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s . U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en b a n c ). A t b o th s ta g e s , w e a p p ly th e a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . Id . “[A ] n abus e of di s cr et i on has occurr ed i f a di s t r i ctcour tbas ed i t s deci s i on on a cl ear l yerr oneous fac tual concl us i on oran err oneous l egal concl us i on. ” Id . at567–68. II. A . Pr ocedur al E r r or T h e G o v e rn m e n t cla im s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt b a se d its se n ten c e o n tw o c lea rly err oneous fac tual fi ndi ngs : 1) M oor e’ s “l aw abi di ng l i fes t y l e thr oughout[hi s ] l i fe e xceptT he D i s t r i ctC our tl at ers t at ed thatM oor e “ha [d] been a . . . l aw - abi di ng ci t i zen 1 t hr oughout[hi s ] l i fe. ” ( J . A . 37. ) W e bel i eve i tcl earfr om the r ecor d t hatthe C our tw as n o t m a k in g a se p a ra te f in d in g o f f a c t w ith th a t sta tem e n t, bu t w a s in ste a d re f e re n c in g its e a r l i e rf i n d i n g t h a tM o o r e l e d a l a w- a b i d i n g l i f e s t y l e “ e x c e p tf

o rth e t a x o f

f e n s e . ” ( J . A. 3 5 .) 3 fort he t ax off

ens e” ( J . A . 35) ; and 2) M oor e’ s “ful l [] cooper at [i on] ” w i t h t he 1 G overnm ent ’ s i nves t i gat or yeff or t s i nt o t he amountof hi s ow n t ax eva s i on and other p o ten tial ta x e v a d e rs ( J.A . 3 7 ). “A f in d in g is c lea rlye rro n e o u s w h e n a lth o u g h th e re is e v id e n c e to su p p o rt it, th e re v iew in g b o d yo n th e e n tire e v id e n c e is le f t w ith th e d e f

in ite and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed. ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). A f ter c a re f u lly r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e ar e l eftw i t houts uch a c onvi ct i on. Fi r s t , t he G overnm entas s er t s thatM oor e comm i t t ed var i ous ot hercr i m es t o fur ther hi s t ax eva s i on, s uch as us i ng fal s e Soci al Secur i t ynum ber s and t i t l i ng r eal es t at e and vehi cl es i n names othert han hi s ow n. B utthe G overnm enthas offe r ed no evi dence t hat M o o re e n g a g e d in a n ys ig n if ic a n t c ri m in a l c o n d u c t th a t w a s u n re la te d to h is ta x e v a s io n . A b sen t suc h a sh o w ing , w e c an n o t saythat itw as c learlyerro n eo u s fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt t o co nclude t hat M oo re l ed an otherw i se l aw -abi ding l i fe asi de from evad i ng t axes. S econ d, t he G ov ernm ent ci t es M oo re’ s conti nu ed fa i l ure t o fil e cert ai n tax form s, fai l ur e t o corr ecti ncompl et e ori nacc ur at e i nform at i on cont ai ned i n otherform s , and i nabi l i t yt o pr ovi de compl et e and a ccur at e i dent i fi cat i on i nform at i on forot herpot ent i al t ax eva der s as evi dence t hatM oor e di d notful l ycooper at e w i t h t he G overnm ent . T he G overnm ent , how ever , i gnor es t he l i t anyof evi dence befor e the D i s t r i ctC our tthat4

s uppor t s a conc l us i on t hatM oor e coope r at ed ful l y . A ts ent enci ng, the G overnm ent re a d ilya d m itt e d th a t M o o re ’s c o o p e ra tio n sa v e d its in v e stig a to rs “ six to e ig h t m o n th s in i nv est i gati ve ti m e, ” w hich i tdeem ed “si gn i fi cant. ” (J . A . 30 . ) Th e G ov ernm ent al so p o inted o u t th at M o o re d iscl o sed that h e h ad ab o u t $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 in a c o m m erc ial cre d itca rd ac co u n t th at, d esp it e k n o w ing the tit le of the a cc o u n t, G o v ern m en t i n v esti g ators “ [h ]ad n ’t l ooked i n i ty et . ” (Id . ) A ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , thi s t oo w as “s i gni fi cant . ” (Id . ) Fi nal l y , M oor e expl ai ned thathe gave the G overnm ental l the i nform at i on thathe had co n ce rnin g the o ther p o tential tax e v ad ers. T ak en as a w h o le, the e v iden ce o f M o o re’s cooper at i on does notl eave us w i t h a “de fi ni t e and f i rm convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been c o m m itte d ” h e re . W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d at 21 8 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h e G o v e rn m e n t als o a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to a c k n o w led g e its arg u m en ts atsen tenc ing . B u t w e h av e h eld th at “[ t] h e c o u rtn ee d n o t discu ss ev ery arg u m en t m ad e b ya li ti g an t i f a n arg u m en t i s clea rl yw ith o u t m erit. . . [n ]or m u st a co u rt di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f the r ecor d m akes cl eart he cour tt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 3 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). N e v e rth e les s, “ w e c e rta in lya lw a y s d e m a n d m o re th a n a ro te r eci t at i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f ats ent enci ng ei t herdefe ndantorthe pr os ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t( pr ovi ded i thas a fa ctual bas i s ) and the cour tfai l s t o addr es s i t . ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at567 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, farfr om pr ovi di ng, as the G overnm entcl ai m s , “an e m ptyl i t anyof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 29) the D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s at5

len g th , fo c u sin g o n M o o re ’s la c k o f sig n if ica n t cr im in a l h isto ry , h is u p b rin g in g , h is s er i ous gambl i ng pr obl em, hi s abi l i t yt o al w ay s pr ovi de forhi s fami l y , hi s cooper at i on w i t h t he G overnm ent , avai l abl e s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves t o i m pr i s onm ent , and s ent enci ng s t at i s t i cs forot herconvi ct ed t ax cr i m i nal s . T her efor e, the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s expl anat i on w as “s uffi ci entforus t o s ee thatt he part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e have been gi ven m eani ngful cons i der at i on w i t hi n t he par amet er s of § 3553( a) . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Levi ns on , 543 F. 3d 190, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err orats ent enci ng. B . S ub st anti ve R easona bleness T h e G o v ern m en t’ s o b

jecti o n to the su b stan ti v e re aso n ab lene ss o f M o o re’s s ent ence i s es s ent i al l ya pl ea f orus t o w ei gh the § 3553( a) fac t or s di ffe r ent l ythan the D istric t C o u rt d id . A c c o rd in g to th e G o v e rn m e n t, do in g so w o u ld c a u se u s to a rriv e a t a s ent ence t hati ncl udes a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . B uton s ent enci ng r evi ew , “[w ] e do not s eek t o s econd gue s s . G i ven the w i del yr ecogni zed i ns t i tut i onal advant ages thatdi s t r i ct cour t s have i n acc es s t o and cons i der at i on of evi dence , w e w oul d be fool i s h t o t r y . ” Levi ns on , 543 F. 3d at196. I ns t ead, “i f the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, we wi l l a f

f i r m i tu n l e s s n o r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r two u l d h a v e i mp o s e d th e s a me s ent ence on t hatpar t i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d at 56 8 . H ere , b ase d o n the c o m p reh en sive rea so n s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt pr ovi ded, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng M oor e t o 5 y ear s of pr obat i on, a $25, 000 fi ne, and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . I n other6

w or ds , “the r ecor d demonstr at es t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s thought ful at t empt t o t ai l orthe o f f -th e -ra c k G u id e lin e s re c o m m e n d a tio n s in to a se n ten c e th a t f its [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] per s onal l y . ” Id . at575. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m M oor e’ s s ent ence .