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- 3843

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

v. NI DAI T UR AN, A p p e llan t.

_____________ 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 D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 3: 06- cr - 247 D i s tr i ctJ udge H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

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

on J ul y12, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , A L D IS E R T a n d R O T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2010) OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A p p e llan t N id a i T u ra n p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d e f ra u d th e U n ited S tate s, in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. H e appe al s fr om hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctT he D i s tr i ctC ourthad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, 1 an d w e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent ence forpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s us i ng an abus e of di s cr et i on s ta n d a rd . U

ni ted States v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 2 C o u rt d idn o t ad e q u a telyc o n sid e r th e 1 8 U .S .C § 3 5 5 3 (a ) se n ten c in g f a c to rs. W e w ill a f f i rm. 1 I. W e w ri te prim aril yfo r th e p arti es a n dd iscu ss the fa cts o n lyto the ex tent n ec essa ry to ad d ress the issue s T u ran raises o n ap p ea l. T u ran an d B ev erlyA n n R eb o v ich w ere ap p reh en d ed b ylaw en fo rce m en t of fice rs w h il e a tt em p ti n g to ca sh a g en u ine T rea su ry chec k us i ng fal s e i dent i fi cat i on. R ebovi ch t ol d l aw enfor cementagent s thatT ur an had r ecrui t ed hert o comm i tbank fr aud and ha d pr ovi ded herw i th fal s e i dent i fi cat i on and o th e ra s s i s t a n c e . S h e a d d i t i o n a l l yi mp l i c a t e d a n o th e rc o n s p i r a t o r , E d wa r d Ch r i s t i l a w, w h o a ls o im p lic a te d T u ra n . Fur theri nves t i gat i on byl aw enfor cementoffi cer s r evea l ed that , among ot her th i n g s , Tu r a n a n d h i s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s h a d r e n t e d ma i l b o x e s a n d o f f i c e s p a c e i n th e n a me o f f ictitio u s b u sin e ss e s a n d h a d u se d f a lse id e n tific a tio n to o p e n b a n ka c c o u n ts w ith count er fei tchec ks . U ndera pr offe ragr eement , T ur an admi tt ed t o l aw enfor cement offi ci al s thathe had r ecrui t ed R ebovi ch and Chri s t i l aw t o comm i tfr aud and i dent i fi ed a s s o c ia te s h ig h e r u p in th e c o n s p ir a c y . T u ra n p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S tate s, in3

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. I n cal cul at i ng T ur an’ s s ent ence underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the C ourtbegan w i th a bas e off ens e l evel of s i x; added tw el ve l evel s fors peci fi c off

ens e cha r act er i s t i cs ; r educe d T ur an’ s adj us t ed off ens e l evel bythr ee leve ls fo r ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ity ; t o o kinto a cc o u n t his cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry , I; an d g ran ted a o n e-lev el do w n w ard d ep arture f o r sub stan ti al assist an ce . T u ran ’s s ent enci ng r ange w as 15- 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , and the C ourti m pos ed a s ent ence of 1 7 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t f o llo w e d b y3 y e a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . II. O n appea l , T ur an ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourti nadequa t el ycons i der ed the 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s a n d i m p o s e d a n e x c e s s i v e l yl o n g s e n t e n c e . We d is a g re e . I n appl y i ng the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , court s m us t : ( 1) cal cul at e the defe nd ant’ s sent ence a ccordi ng t o the G uidel i nes; (2) form al l yrul e on bo th p art i es’ m ot i ons and s t at e on the r ecor d w hatdepartur es ar e gr ant ed and how the depa rtur es aff ect the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on; and ( 3) exer ci s e thei rdi s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the r el evant f a c to rs s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U ni ted States v. G unter , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S ec ti o n 3 5 5 3 (a) d ir ec ts co u rt s to c o n side r sev era l fac tors, inclu d ing “the n ature and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant ” and4

“ th e n e e d to a v o idu n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities .” S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 ) re q u ire s c o u rts t o i m pos e a s ent ence s uffi ci ent , but not gr eat er than nece s s ary , t o compl yw i th the [f o ll o w ing ] pu rpo ses[ :] ( A ) t o r efl ect the ser i ous nes s of the off ens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect forthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe off ens e; (B ) to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; (C ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; and (D ) t o p rov ide th e d ef

en d an t w ith n ee d ed ed u ca ti o n al or v o c a tio n a l train in g , m e d ica l ca re , o r o th e r c o rre c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t in th e m o s t e f f e c tiv e m a n n e r. Tu r a n a r g u e s th a tth e s e n t e n c i n g c o u rtf a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l yc o n s i d e rth e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) , ( B ) , and ( C ) s ent enci ng goal s of j us tpuni s hm ent , det err ence , and i ncapa ci t at i on. I n part i cul ar , he ar gues thathi s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , per s onal hi s t ory , and fa m i l yr el at i ons hi ps , i ncl udi ng hi s car e fora daught erunder goi ng m edi cal tr e a tm e n t, in d ic a te th a t th e s e n te n c in g g o a ls c o u ld b e s e rv e d b ya s h o rt e r s e n te n c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt d o e s n o t n e e d to e x p licitlyd isc u ss a n d m a k e “ f in d in g s a s to eac h [18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ] fac t ori f the r ecor d otherw i s e makes cl earthatthe courtt ook the fa ct or s i nt o acc ount . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . L e s s n e r, 498 F. 3d 185, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e se n ten c in g ju d g e “ sh o u ldse t f o rth e n o u g h to sa tisf

yth e a p p e llate courtthathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i ty . ” I d. ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted).5

T he D i s tr i ctC ourtm eani ngful l ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and expl ai ned w h yitrejected T u ran ’s req u est fo r a lesse r sen tenc e. A cc o rdin g ly , w e f ind that T u ran ’s s ent ence i s notpr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtacknow l edged thatT ur an di d nothave acr i m i nal r ecor d butconcl uded thatT ur an’ s offe ns e w as “s er i ous . ” ( A pp. at 4 1 .) T h e C o u rt b a lan c e d T u ra n ’s p e rso n a l li f e , w h ich it d e sc rib e d a s “ f a v o ra b le,” w ith th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e . (I d. ) Be c a u s e T u r a n r e c ru i t e d Re b o v i c h a n d Ch r i s t i l a w, adv i sed them , and provided them w i th “fa l se m at eri al ” used to accom pli sh the o ffen ses, the C ourtconcl uded thatT ur an pl ay ed a mor e s i gni fi cantr ol e i n the vi ol at i ons and di d not d e s e rv e a f

u rth e r s e n te n c e re d u c tio n . (Id . at40. ) I n l i ghtof the s er i ous natur e of the offe ns e, the C ourtgave pa rt i cul aratt ent i on t o the nee d t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om further cr i m es on T ur an’ s part . W hi l e the C ourtdi d notexpl i ci t l ym ake f i ndi ngs as t o al l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , i t s thor ough anal y s i s of the fa ct s of Tura n’ s cas e i ndi cat es thati tt ook the 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs in to a c c o u n t an d h a d a re a so n e d b a sis f o r e x e rc isin g its d is c re tio n . T u ran ’s sen tenc e is also s u b stan ti v elyrea so n ab le. T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e, w e t ake i nt o acc ount“the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s ” and gi ve “due defe r ence t o the di s tr i ctcourt ' s det erm i nat i on thatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” Tom ko , at567- 68 ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h u s, w h e n th e se n ten c e is “ w ith in th e b ro a d ra n g e o f p o ss ib le6

sent ences that can be co nsi dered reasonab l e i n li gh tof the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fact ors, w e mustaff

i rm . ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). H ere , the s en tenc ing co u rtco n side red the n ature an d circu m stan ce s o f T u ran ’s offe ns e, hi s hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs , the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e, and the pos s i bi l i tyof s ent enci ng di s par i t i es . I tfound es peci al l ypr obat i ve the s er i ous nes s of the o ff en se a n d T u ran ’s role in relati o n to h is co -co n sp ir ators. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt adequa t el ycons i der ed the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s and i m pos ed a pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e s ent ence . III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a f f irm th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.