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 4-23-2009 

# U SA v . S mith 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 . 07-4525

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 authori 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 . S mith" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1490. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1490NOT 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- 4525

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DA RREN SM I TH a l s o k n o wn a s DOMI NI QUE E VANS a l s o k n o wn a s DA RREN SM I TH

D arr en Sm i th, 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 2- 07- cr - 00376- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . S tanleyR . C h esler Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, SL O V I T E R , and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A pr i l 23, 2009 )

OP I NI ONSm i th’ s pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d i ncl u d ed fi ve fe l ony 1 con vict i on s. 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. D a rre n S m ith , w h o p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it ro b b e rya n d c o n sp ira c yto c o mmi tb u r g l a r y , a p p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e o f 1 8 8 mo n th s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. Sm i th cons pi r ed w i th other s t o comm i tatl eas tfi fty - fi ve home- i nvas i on r obber i es a s w e ll as th e a rm e d ro b b e ryo f a jew e lrysto re . In c o m m itt in g th e h o m e in v a sio n s, S m ith and hi s co- defe ndant s cutt el ephone a nd hom e al arm w i r es , for ci bl ypus hed i n the fr ont d o o rs, an d stole it em s tha t th eylat er il lega ll yso ld. W ith resp ec t t o the jew elrystore r obbery , Sm i th gave a s emi - aut om at i c pi s t ol t o hi s co- defe ndantW i l l i ams and thr eat ened t o hur tW i l l i ams’ m other , daught er , and gi r l fr i end i f he di d notr ob the s t or e. S m ith p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it r o b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951( a) and cons pi r acyt o comm i tbur gl aryi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. I n the pl ea a g re e m e n t, th e p a rties stip u late d th a t S m ith ’s to tal o f f e n se lev e l w a s tw e n ty -n in e a n d h is cr i m i nal cat egoryw as V I , thata s ent ence “w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange thatr es ul t s fr om 1 the agr eed t ot al G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel of 29 ( tw enty - ni ne) i s r eas onabl e, ” and thatt he p arti es w o u ld n o t seek an u p w ard o r do w n w ard d ep arture o r ad justm en t. A p p . at 32 . In a d d iti o n , the p lea a g re e m e n t in c lu d e d a n a p p e llate w a iv e r, p ro v id in g th a t S m ith “vol unt ar i l yw ai ves , the r i ghtt o fi l e anyappea l . . . w hi ch cha l l enges the s ent ence i m pos ed3

. . . i f thats ent ence fal l s w i thi n orbel ow the G ui del i nes r ange thatr es ul t s fr om the agr eed t ot al G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel of 29. ” A pp. 32. Sm i th r es erved hi s r i ghtt o appea l the c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry , b u t “if th e se n ten c in g c o u rt a c c e p ts a s t i pul at i on [her ei n] , both part i es w ai ve the r i ghtt o fi l e an appeal . . . cl ai m i ng thatt he s ent enci ng courterr ed i n doi ng s o. ” A pp. at32. A t th e p lea c o llo q u y , the D istric t C o u rt q u e stio n e d S m ith a b o u t h is s tip u latio n s in or dert o ens ur e thathe under s t ood thei reff ecton hi s s ent ence : T H E C O U R T : [The pl ea a gr eement ] cont ai ns s om e agr eement s betw een y ou a n d th e U .S . A tto rn e y ’s o f f ic e a b o u t . . . f

a c ts w h ic h g o in to c a lc u la tin g . . . the gui del i ne s ent enci ng r ange . . . [. F] orexampl e, y ou have a gr eed . . . that y ourt ot al offe ns e l evel i n t hi s cas e i s a l evel 29. T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : Y o u ’v e a lso a g re e d . . . tha t y o u r c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryis a l evel s i x. A p p . at 50 . In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rtad d resse d S m ith ’s ap p ell ate w aive r: T H E C O U R T : [The pl ea a gr eementpr ovi des that , i ] f I gi ve y ou a s ent ence w hi ch i s w i thi n t he s ent enci ng r ange f oran off ens e l evel 29 orl ow er , y ou w ill n o t ap p e a l th e se n ten c e o r th e c o n v ictio n o r m a k e a n yo th e r typ e o f p o stc o n v ictio n a ttac k o r c h a llen g e o n th e se n ten c e o r c o n v ictio n . H a v e y o u in f a c t ag re e d to d o th a t? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : H av e y o u d iscu ssed itw ith [y o u r att o rne y ]? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y e s . *** T H E C O U R T : H ave y ou been s at i s fi ed w i th hi s expl anat i on of w hyhe has re c o m m e n d e d th a t y o u a g re e to it? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y e s . Ap p . a t5 2 . Th e Co u r tth e n c o r r e c t l yc a l c u l a t e d th e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e r e s u l t i n g f r o m a offe ns e l evel of tw enty - ni ne and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I t o be 151 t o 188 m ont hsSm i th’ s s ent ence w as cal cul at ed pur s uantt o the M ay1, 2 20 07 , edit i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes. 4 i ncar cer at i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o addr es s ed 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s , concl udi ng 2 th a t a s u b sta n tial se n ten c e w a s w a rra n ted h e re d u e to th e sc a le o f th e c o n sp ira c y , it s n u m e ro u s v ictim s, th e n e e d f o r sp e c if ic a n d g e n e ra l d e ter re n c e , an d th e d a n g e r th a t S m ith pos ed t o s oci etyas a r es ul tof hi s “l i fet i m e of c ont i nued cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ” A pp. at102. D es pi t e Sm i th’ s agr eementt o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence , he now ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. II. “‘ W ai ver s of appe al s , i f ent er ed know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ar e val i d, unl es s t hey w or k a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ’ ” U

n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 (3d C ir . 2007) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 273 F. 3d 557, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Sm i th does not ar gue thathi s pl ea w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . M or eover , the r ecor d s how s that Sm i th di s cus s ed the pl ea a gr eementand i t s r ami fi cat i ons w i th both hi s att orneyand the D i s tr i ctC our t , and nothi ng i n t he r ecor d otherw i s e i m pugns the val i di tyof the pl ea a g re e m e n t. I n addi t i on, ther e i s no ques t i on thatSm i th’ s appea l fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w a iv e r p ro v is io n , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 52 3 F . 3d 23 4, 24 4 (3d C i r. 20 08 ), becau se Sm i th w ai ved the r i ghtt o “fi l e anyappea l . . . w hi ch cha l l enges the s ent ence i m pos ed by th e se n ten c in g c o u rt if th a t se n ten c e f a lls w ith in o r b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e th a t re su ltsT he D i s tr i ctC our trej ect ed Sm i th’ s r eques tfora w ai ver 3 beca us e of the condi t i ons i n the P as s ai c C ounty J ai l . E ven i f that o b jec tio n w e re to su rv iv e th e w a iv e r, w e w o u ld n o t d isa g re e w ith the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on. 5 f ro m th e a g re e d to tal G u id e lin e s o f f e n se lev e l o f

2 9 .” A p p . at 3 2 . E v e n th o u g h S m ith rese rve d the righ t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de term ination o f h is cri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ry , the w aive r also p rov ided that h e c o u ld n o t app ea l anyissue u p o n w h ich th e C o u rt accep t ed a st i pu l at i on betw een the part i es. B ecause the C ou rtaccep t ed the part i es’ s t i pul at i on thatSm i th had a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , he i s pr ecl uded fr om c h a llen g in g th a t d e ter m in a tio n o n a p p e a l. Fi nal l y , Sm i th’ s cas e does notpr es ent“an unus ual ci r cumst ance w her e an e rr or amount i ng t o a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce mayi nval i dat e the w ai ver . ” Khat tak , 273 F. 3d at 562 ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Teet er , 257 F. 3d 14, 25 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ) . Sm i th chal l enges onl ythe r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . “[I ] n l i ghtof G a ll ’s [ G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 586, 596 ( 2007) ] defe r ent i al abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d forr evi ew i ng s ent enci ng appea l s , i tw i l l be a r ar e and unus ual s i tuat i on w hen cl ai m s of an unr eas onabl e s ent ence , s t andi ng al one, w i l l be s uffi ci entt o i nval i dat e a w ai verbeca us e of a m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Jack

s on , 523 F. 3d at244. T hi s cas e cl ear l ydoes notpr es entanys uch “unus ual s i tuat i on. ” I

d. 3 III . B eca us e Sm i th’ s appea l i s barr ed bythe appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on of hi s pl eaagr eement , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .