2006 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 1-27-2006 

# U SA v . P ark e r 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 . 04-3458

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_2006

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 2006 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 . P arke r " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1708. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1708T he H onor abl e D i cki ns on R . D ebevoi s e, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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. 04- 3458 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RAYM OND P ARKER, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C ri m . 0 3 -cr-00 2 5 0 -3 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary9, 2006
B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and D E B E V O I SE , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary27, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e llan t R a ym o n d P a rk e r p led g u iltyto a o n e c o u n t In f o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im
w i t h U s e of a C om m uni cat i on Faci l i t yt o Faci l i t at e a Fel onyD rug C r i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 3 (b ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th e q u a n titya n d typ e o f d ru g s in v o lv e d : b etw ee n fiv e a n d tw en tyg ram s o f c rac k co ca ine. B ase d o n this find ing , the C o u rt c a lc u la te d th e a p p lic a b le S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e to b e 4 6 -4 8 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. T he C our t , how ever , depart ed dow nw ar d fr om t hi s r ange unde rU . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 bas ed on Par ker ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o author i t i es , and i m pos ed a s ent ence of thi r t ym ont hs im p riso n m e n t. P ark er c h all en g es h is sen tenc e u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . Speci fi cal l y , Par keras s er t s t hathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byt he
us e of j udi ci al fac tfi ndi ng t o enhanc e hi s s ent ence bas ed on the amountof drugs i nvol ved. H e cont ends t hatt her e w er e no admi s s i ons , noranyj ur yfi ndi ngs bey ond a
r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , r e g a r d i n g t h e d ru g q u a n t i t y. B eca us e Parkerw as s ent ence d befor e the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ooker , h is appea l fal l s w i t hi n t he ambi tof ourdeci s i on i n U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162, 166 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( en banc ) ( concl udi ng t hatdefe ndant s s ent ence d befor e B ookersh o u ld have thei rs ent enci ng chal l enge “ r emand[ed] forcons i der at i on of the appr opr i at e s ent ence b ythe D istri ct C o u rtin the firstinstan ce . ”). T h ere fo re, al tho u g h w e w il l aff irm P ark er’s
c o n v ictio n , w e w ill v a c a te h is s e n ten c e a n d re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith3

B ooker .