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 2-5-2010 

# U SA v . K e nneth Go e n aga 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 . 09-1071

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Ke nne th Goe n aga" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1927. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1927NOT 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

_____________ No. 09-1071

_____________ UN I TE D STAT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. KENNET H GOENAGA, a/k/a Kenny KENNET H GOENAGA, Appe lla nt.

______________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 ( C r i m . N o. 05- cr - 275) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary14, 2010.

______________ B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: February5, 2010 )

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. K e n n e th G o e n a g a a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly sum m ari ze t he essenti al fact s. G oenaga pl ed gui l t yt o one countof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e her oi n and coc ai ne bas e ( know n as “cr ack c ocai ne”) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound G oenaga ’ s offe ns e l evel t o be 34, w i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , y i el di ng a Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 262 t o 327 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . H ow ever , the off ens e cont ai ned a s t atut orym axi m um of 20 y ears , or 240 m on t hs. G oenaga pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance w i t h t he G overnm ent ’ s i nves t i gat i on, and th e G o v e rn m e n t s u b m itte d a m o tio n f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5K 1. 1, r ecomm endi ng G oenaga r ece i ve a s ent ence of no m or e than 120 mont hs . T he D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n a n d a d o p ted a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re to offe ns e l evel 26, pr ovi di ng fora r ange of 120 t o 150 m ont hs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen s ent ence d G oenaga t o 120 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , fi ndi ng thatthi s s ent ence s at i s fi ed the statu toryfa ctors se t fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). A ft erG oenaga ’ s s ent ence w as i m pos ed, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on enac t ed3

A m endment706, w hi ch r educe d t he off ens e l evel foroffe ns es i nvol vi ng cr ack c ocai ne by tw o le v e ls . G o e n a g a s u b m itte d a m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcal cul at ed thathi s adj us t ed off ens e l evel w oul d be 32, y i el di ng a G ui del i nes r ange of 210 t o 240 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ppl y i ng an equi val ent § 5 K 1 .1 d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re y ield e d a ra n g e o f 1 0 5 -1 2 0 m o n th s. G o e n a g a a rg u e d th a t h is s ent ence s houl d be r educe d t o t he bot t om end of thi s r ange, 105 m onths , butthe D i s t r i ct C ou rtdecli ned t o reduc e G oen aga’s s entence below the o ri ginal sent ence o f 12 0 m on t hs. I n expl ai ni ng i t s deci s i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfi r s tnot ed thatthe 120- m ont h s ent ence fel l w i t hin the n ew l ycal culat ed G uidel i nes range. Itfurther exp l ai ned that the “o ffen se c o n d u c t d e sc rib e d a t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g . . . w a s p a rticu lar lytro u b lin g .” A p p e n d ix (“ A p p .” 3 ). T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t G o e n a g a w a s “ in tim a telyin v o lv e d in tra f f ick in g h e ro in and coc ai ne” i n t w o di ffe r ents t at es , thata “numberof i ndi vi dual s tr aff i cked he r oi n on [hi s ] behal f, ” and that“[s ] ever al vi ct i m s over dos ed and s uffe r ed s er i ous i nj uryaft er ing esti n g h ero in attr ibu ted to [h is] o rga n izati o n . ” A p p . 6 -7. “P u rsua n t t o § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b)(1 )” and cons i der i ng “the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the off ens e” a nd “the dange rdefe ndant pos es t o t he comm uni t y , ” the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatG oenaga ’ s s ent ence di d not w arr anta r educt i on. A pp. 6. G oenaga t i m el yappea l ed. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . §§ 3231 and 3582( c) . W e have4

j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew de novo the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal i nt erpr et at i on of r el evants t atut es and G ui del i nes , and w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ul t i m at e rul i ng on a mot i on t o r educe a s ent ence pur s uantt o § 3582( c) ( 2) . See U n it ed S tat es v . M ateo , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 & n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) gr ant s a s ent enci ng courtdi s cr et i on t o r educe the pr i s on t erm of a def endantw ho “has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r a n g e t h a th a s s u b s e q u e n t l yb e e n l o we r e d b yth e S e n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n . . . . ” 1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) ( 2) . Such a r educt i on, how ever , m us tbe “c ons i s t entw i t h appl i cabl e pol i cy s t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” I d. R el evantt o t hi s cas e, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on has s t at ed thati n cons i der i ng a § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on, the s ent enci ng cour t“s hal l cons i dert he natur e and s er i ous nes s of the dange rt o . . . the c o m m u n ity th a t m a yb e p o s e d b ya re d u c tio n in th e d e f e n d a n t’ s te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t,” alon g w ith the s en tenc ing fa ctors se t fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b), cm t. n . 1 (b)(i) -(i i) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yeval uat ed the s er i ous nes s of G oenaga ’ s offe ns e and the pot ent i al r i s k t o t he comm uni t ybefor e det erm i ni ng thatG oenaga ’ s s ent ence s houl d notbe r educe d anyfur t her . See A pp. 6- 7. G oenaga cont ends thateveryas pectof the Sent enci ng G ui de l i ne s mus tbe t r e a t e d a s pu r e l ya dv i s oryi n l i gh tof U ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , and i t s pr ogeny . H ow ever , w e have hel d t hatB ooker does notappl yt o a § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) re -se n ten c in g . U n ited S tate s v . D ill o n , 5 7 2 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), ce rt.5

gr ant ed, 78 U . S. L . W . 3334, 3340 ( U . S. D ec. 7, 2009) ( N o. 09- 6338) . U nl i ke i n D i l l on, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hi s cas e di d notdenyG oenaga ’ s m ot i on beca us e i tfel t“bound byt he gui del i nes r ange. ” I d. R ather , t he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on and det erm i ned t hatG oenaga ’ s s ent ence appr opr i at el yacc om pl i s hed the goal s of s ent enci ng. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rtd id n o t m isap p lythe law o r ab u se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing G o en ag a’s m o ti o n fo r a r educt i on i n s ent ence . III F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.