T he H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i tt 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. 09- 1560 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BE NJ AM I N GR E E N,

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 f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 08- cr - 00220- 001 (H on orabl e L egrom e D . D avis ) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A a n d A M B R O , C i r cui tJudges , a n d J O N E S , D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J ul y29, 2010) OPINI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge . A p p e llan t B e n

jam in G re e n p led g u iltyto six c o u n ts o f a g g ra v a ted id e n tityth e f t in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1028 ( a) ( 1) and ( c) ( 4) , s i x count s of fr aud w i th an ac ces s devi ceT he di s tr i ctcourtexer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 o v e r a tim e ly ap p e a l f

ro m a ju d g m e n t in a c ri m in a l c a s e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 .

2 i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1029( a) ( 2) , and one c ountof bank f r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1344. T he D i s tr i ctC ourts ent ence d G r een t o 84 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , re s titu tio n o f $ 9 5 ,5 2 2 .6 4 , a n d a s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 1 ,3 0 0 . G ree n ap p ea ls his sen tenc e, co n tend ing itis pro ce d u rall yu n rea so n ab le. F ind ing n o erro r, we wi l l a f

f i rm. 1 I. B etw een D ece m ber2006 and A pr i l 2007, G r een s t ol e the i dent i t i es of num er ous peopl e and a cqui r ed o v e r $ 7 0 ,0 0 0 b yu s in g h is v ic tim s ’ b a n kc h e c k s a n dc re d it c a rd s . A p o lice se a rc h o f

G re e n ’s r e sid e n c e re c o v e re d o v e r f o rtyp a tien t p ro f

iles f ro m P h ilad e lp h ia hos pi t al s , W achovi a B ank cus t om erpr ofi l es and s i gnatur e car ds , compl et ed l oan app l i cat i on s, ei gh ty -one do cum ents i nv olvi ng i den t i fi cat i on i nfo rm at i on for other persons, and a book e nt i t l ed “I dent i tyT heft : T he C yber cr i m e of the M i l l enni um . ” A s not ed, G re e n p le d g u ilty. A ts ent enci ng, G r een ar gued hi s act i ons w arr ant ed a s ent ence w i thi n the r ange r ecomm ended bythe s ent enci ng gui del i nes , 57– 65 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm entar gued the gui del i nes r ange unde r s t at ed the s er i ous nes s of G r een’ s cr i m es an d d id n o t t ak e into ac co u n t G ree n ’s ex tr ao rdin arym ea su res to o b tai n h is victi m ’s i dent i t i es and banki ng i nform at i on; acc or di ngl y , i tr ecomm ended as ent ence of 108G ree n ’s sen tenc e w as b ase d o n a total of fe n se lev el of

1 5 an d a c ri m inal h ist o rysco re 2 of V I . H e does notchal l enge the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . W hen l i s t eni ng t o M r . G oodw i n’ s t es t i m ony , the C ourtas ked “W hatdo y ou thi nk I 3 oughtt o do t o thi s y oung m an?” I n r es pons e, M r . G oodw i n r epl i ed “W el l , J udge, I ’ m not th e –I’m n o t th e ju d g e in th is to g iv e th e se n ten c e , b u t . . . if it w e re u p to m e , I p ro b ab ly w o u ld g ive h im the m ax im u m sen tenc e.” T h e m ax im u m statu toryp en altyfo r G ree n ’s cr i m es w oul d have be en up t o 102 y ear s i n pr i s on, up t o $4, 000, 000 i n fi nes , up t o $1, 300 i n s peci al as s es s m ent s , and up t o fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. 3 m onths . T he governm entpr es ent ed fi ve w i tnes s s t at ement s fr om vi ct i m s , one of w hom t es t i fi ed ats ent enci ng. T he vi ct i m w ho t es t i fi ed, M r . G oodw i n, t ol d the courthe w i s hed G r een t o r ece i ve the maxi m um s ent ence pos s i bl e. G r een c ont ends hi s s ent ence of 84 2 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t w as p roc ed u rall yu n rea so n ab le be ca u se th e c o u rtco n side red M r. G oodw i n’ s opi ni on i n i m pos i ng s ent ence . 3 II. W e g e n e ra lly re v ie w s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G al lv. U

ni ted States , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . G r een di d notobj ectt o the purport ed err or , s o w e r evi ew undera pl ai n err ors t andar d. Fed. R . C r i m . P. 52( b) . Pl ai n err orr equi r es an err or , the e rr o r t o b e p la in , a n d th e p la in e rr o r t o a f f e c t th e ap p e lla n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . See U ni ted States v. Heckm an , 59 2 F. 3d40 0, 40 4 ( 3dCi r . 20 10 ) . Bec a us e Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 52( b) i s perm i s s i ve, notm andat ory , w e mayr ever s e i f the pl ai n err oraff ect s s ubs t ant i al ri g h ts , b u t a re n o t r e q u ir e d to d o s o . U ni ted States v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 5 (1 9 9 3 ). “Fora pl ai n err ort o aff ects ubs t ant i al r i ght s , i tm us thave a ffe ct ed the out come of the4

di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs . ” U ni ted States v. Heckm an , 592 F. 3d 400, 404 ( ci t i ng O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s “foc us es on w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC ourtcomm i tt ed any err ori n cal cul at i ng orexpl ai ni ng the s ent ence . ” U ni ted States v. Lychock , 578 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng G a ll, 552 U . S. at51) . Pr ocedur al err or s coul d i ncl ude i m p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t i n g th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o rtr e a t i n g th e g u i d e l i n e s a s m a n d a t o ry, fai l i ng t o cons i derthe mi t i gat i ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , choos i ng a s ent ence b a s e d o n “ c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s f a c ts ,” o r n o t a d e q u a te ly ex p la in in g th e s e n te n c e . G a ll, 552 U . S . at 51 . G ree n co n tend s h is sen tenc e w as p roc ed u rall yu n so u n d b ec au se th e c o u rt act ed bey ond i t s author i zed di s cr et i on w hen i tas ked one of G r een’ s vi ct i m s aboutthe pos s i bl e s ent ence . W e di s agr ee. I n i t s s ent enci ng di s cr et i on, the courtm aycons i dera var i etyof fa ct or s , i ncl udi ng th e g u id e lin e s, “ g ro u n d s ra ise d b yc o u n se l, th e d e f e n d a n t’s a llo c u tio n , [a n d ] v ictim s t at ement s . ” U

ni ted States v. V

am pi r e N at i on , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 8 1 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); See a l so D i l lon v. U

ni ted States , N o . 0 9 -6 3 3 8 , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 0 0 1 0 9 , a t * 3 (U .S . J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ). A d d iti o n a lly , the C rim e V ictim s’ R ig h ts A c t (C V R A ) g iv e s c rim e v ictim s “ [ t]h e rig h t to be r eas onabl yhear d atanypubl i c pr ocee di ng i n the di s tr i ctcourti nvol vi ng r el eas e, pl ea, sen tenc ing , o r an yp aro le pro ce ed ing . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 7 1 (a)(4) (2 0 1 0 ). T h e c o u rt ’s qu est i on s t o M r. G oo dw i n ad dress ed the ser i ou sness of the d efen dan t ’s off ense an d “just p u n ishm en t” un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e c o u rth ea rd (a n d rejected ) th e v ict im ’sW h en the d ef en d an t ask ed w h yh e re ce ived a se n tenc e o f 8 4 m o n ths, th e c o u rt 4 r es ponded, “[T] he w aythatI anal yze w haty ou di d i s thaty ou’ r e comm i tt ed t o a part i cul ar co u rse. . . . Y o u h av e d o n e this co u n tl ess tim es b ef o re. Y o u r ex p lana ti o n s are n ’t part i cul ar l yper s uas i ve. A nd the onl yw aythatI know of thatw e can keep y ou fr om comm i tt i ng m or e cr i m es i s form e t o puty ou i n j ai l . . . . A nd I thoughtthat , i n l i ghtof everythi ng that ’ s i nvol ved i n a fe der al s ent enci ng, 84 m onths , w hi ch i s aboutthe re c o m m e n d e d ra n g e , is m o re th a n f a ir .” 5 opi ni on, and hear d t es t i m onyfr om the def endant , and couns el s ’ r ecomm endat i ons . T he courtcons ul t ed the gui del i nes , cons i der ed the 3553( a) fac t or s , pr ovi ded a s ent ence bas ed on undi s put ed fa ct s , and expl ai ned the chos en s ent ence . Se e G a ll , 5 5 2 U .S . a t 5 1 . 4 H e a ri n g M r. G o o d w in ’s o p in io n ab o u t s e n te n c in g d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r. E v e n a ss u m in g th e c o u rt’s q u e ryh a d b e e n e rro n e o u s (w h ich it w a s n o t), n o th in g in the r ecor d s ugges t s the vi ct i m ’ s s t at ementi m pr oper l yi nfl uence d the court ’ s s ent enci ng j udgm entand thus aff

ect ed G r een’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . T he courti m pos ed a s ent ence of 84 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, r es t i tut i on of $95, 522. 64 and a s peci al as s es s m entof $1, 300. T hi s s ent ence fal l s above the G ui del i nes r ange of 57– 65 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , butl i es w el l bel ow the governm ent ’ s r ecomm endat i on of 108 m o n ths, an d is far b elow the m ax im u m sen tenc e su g g ested b ythe v ict im . G ree n ’s s ent ence i s both pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i al l yr eas onabl e. W e “ rep o se o u r co n fid en ce in d istri ct j u d g es to ap p lyfa ir lyan d justl ythe f ac tors s etforth i n 18 U . S. C . 3553( a) , w hi ch mayr equi r e var i ance s fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ” U ni ted States v. Kennedy, 554 F. 3d 415, 423 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e s ee no e rr or , l etal one p lai n erro r.6 II I. Forthe for goi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .