2010 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 4-16-2010 

# U SA v . Rob e r t Sweet 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 . 08-2579

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ro be r t Swe e t " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1494. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1494H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 08- 2579

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

A ppel l ee, v. RO BERT W . SW EET, A p p e llan t.

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 07- cr - 00268) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010)

____________2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . R o b e rt S w e e t ap p e a ls h is ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e f

o llo w in g a g u iltyp lea . W e w ill a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w e r ecountonl yt he es s ent i al fac t s . U nt i l M ar ch 2006, Sw eets erved as D i r ect orof the D epart m entof Publ i c W or ks fort he B or ough of T ay l or , Penns y l vani a. Sw eet ’ s pos i t i on al l ow ed hi m t o contr ol w hi ch bus i nes s es and i ndi vi dual s w er e aw ar ded publ i c w or ks contr act s . I n O ct ober2005, a contr act ori nfor m ed t he FB I t hatSw eetr egul ar l yacc ept ed ki ckbac ks fr om B or ough contr act or s . B etw een O ct ober2005 and February2006, t hi s cooper at i ng contr act orpai d Sw eets ever al t hous and dol l ar s i n ki ckbac ks dur i ng s ever al m eet i ngs r ecor ded byt he FB I . W hen conf r ont ed by FB I agent s i n M ar ch 2006, Sw eetadmi t t ed ac cept i ng i l l egal ki ckbac ks fort he pr evi ous fi ve y ear s . H e al s o acknow l edged r ece i vi ng ki ckbac ks fr om contr act or s w ho bi l l ed the B or ough forw or k theyneverper for m ed. Sw eetpl eade d gui l t yt o a s i ngl e countof i nt er fer i ng w i t h comm er ce byext or t i on undercol orof off

i ci al r i ghti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951. A ts ent enci ng, Sw eet s t i pul at ed he ha d r ece i ved betw een $10, 000 and $30, 000 i n i l l egal ki ckbac ks dur i ng t he cour s e of hi s s cheme. Sw eetdi d notobj ectt o t he ca l cul at i on of hi s advi s or yG ui del i nes3

r ange of 37 t o 46 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . R ecogni zi ng Sw eet ’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yand s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance , t he G overnm entm oved fora fi ve- l evel dow nw ar d departur e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thi s m ot i on, y i el di ng a fi nal G ui del i nes range o f 21 t o 2 7 m on t hs i m pri sonm ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtt hen grant ed S w eet ’s request f o r a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e a n d se n ten c e d h im to 1 8 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. II. Sw eetar gues t hathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ct C o u rtfa il ed to co n side r th e se n tenc ing fa ctors o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e re co rd demonst r at es ot herw i s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tbegan bycons i der i ng Sw eet ’ s per s onal hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , not i ng t hathi s advanc ed age , m edi cal pr obl ems, and s ig n if ic a n t f a m ily a n d c o m m u n ity su p p o rt a ll s u p p o rt e d a le n ie n t s e n te n c e . See § 3553( a) ( 1) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o expl ai ned thatt he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the o f f e n s e in v o lv e d a n a b u s e o f p u b lic tru s t. S e e id . Such a s er i ous offe ns e, r eas oned the D i stri ctC ou rt , requi red a sent ence thatw ou l d p rom ote r espectfor t he law , provide j ust p u n is h m e n t, a n d d e te r s im ila r c o n d u c t b yo th e r p u b lic o f f ic ia ls . See § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 )( A )- (B ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tfur t hercons i der ed the var i ous s ent enci ng al t ernat i ves w hen gr ant i ng b o th the G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture a n d S w ee t’ s req u est fo r a v a ri a n c e . See § 3553( a) ( 3) . B eca us e the r ecor d r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e p e rtin e n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, S w e e t’s s e n ten c e w a s n o t p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).4

S w e e t n e x t co n ten d s th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it w as gr eat ert han nec es s arygi ven the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e and others ent enci ng alt ern ati v es, suc h as h o m e c o n fin em en t and p rob ati o n . W e h av e m ad e c lear, h o w ev er, t hat“i f the di s t r i ctcourt ' s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e w i l l aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpar t i cul ar defe ndantfort he r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” Id . A ft ergr ant i ng Sw eeta fi vel evel dow nw ar d departur e and a dow nw ar d var i ance , t he D i s t r i ctC our tful l yexpl ai ned how hi s 18- m ont h s ent ence r efl ect ed the cons i der at i ons embodi ed i n § 3553( a) . G i ven t he fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e ca nnots ayt hats uch a s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. Id . ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ) ( “U l t i m at el y , ‘ [t ] he t ouchs t one of ‘ r eas onabl enes s ' i s w hethert he r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and m ea n ing fu l con side rati o n o f th e f ac tors en u m era ted in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). ’”). H avi ng found no pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve err or , w e w i l l aff i r m Sw eet ’ s j udgm ent of s ent ence .