2009 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 2-23-2009 

# U S A v . S al vat or e S p a r a c io P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1882

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S alvat or e S p a r a c io " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1832. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1832The Honor able Ala n D. L ourie, Judge of

the United States Court of Appe als for the * Fe dera l Circuit, sit ting by designation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 08-1822

_________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, v . SALVATORE SPARACI O, Ap pe lla

nt

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia No. 2-94-c r-00127- 4 (District Judge: The Honora ble Ronald L . Buc kwalter )

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Fe bruar y 5, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, JORDAN, an d LO U R IE Circuit Judges .

* (F iled: Febr

uary 23, 2009)2 OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T McKe e, Circuit J udg e, Sa lvator e Spa

ra c io a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r d e nyinghis mot ion to m od if y his se nte nc e purs ua

nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) . F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll a ff

ir m. I . Inasmuch a s we a

re writing pr imarily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, we need not r ecite the fac tual or proc edura l history . We exercise plena ry revie w over

leg al questions conce rningthe interpre tation of the Sentenc ing Guidelines. See Un ite d S tates v . B ati

sta , 483 F.3d 193, 196 ( 3d Cir. 2007). Sparac io argues that the district cour t should have grante d the motion he filed to reduc e his se nte nc e of

imp ri so nme nt p ur su ant t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) . Se c tio n 3 85 2( c )( 2) a llo ws a sentenc ing r eduction if the de fenda nt “has be en sente nced to a term of imprisonment base d on a se nte nc ingra

ng e that ha s su

bs e qu e ntl y

be e n lo we re d b y

the Se nte nc ingCommis sio n. ” Spa ra c io c la ims that th e a do pti on

of Am e ndme nt 5 91 mand atin gthat th e ini tia l se le c tio n o f a n o ff e ns e guid e lin e be ba se d o nly

on the statut e of

c onvic tio n, and

no t on re late d c on du c t, j us tif

ie s a re du c tio n o f h is s e nte nc e purs ua nt t o § 35 82 (c )( 2) . U .S. S.G ., Ap p. C, a me nd . 5 91 (2 00 3) ; see United States v. Diaz , 245 F.3d 294, 302 ( 3d Cir. 2001). Howeve r the sente ncingcourt c orre ctly applied U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1(A) when Spar acio wa s sentenc ed. That guide line applies to “Unla wful Conduct Relatingto Rackete er I nfluenc ed and Corrupt Org anizations.” Sparac io does not contend that the c ourt err ed in selec ting that guideline. Rather, he contends that unde r Amendme nt 591 the district court should not have a pp lie d th e c ro ss r e fe re nc e to U .S. S.G . § 2A 1. 1 a nd § 2 A1 .5 (c )( 2) , whic h s pe c if y a ba se of fe ns e3

le ve l ba se d o n F ir st D e g re e Mu rd e r a nd Con sp ir a c y

to C omm it M ur de r. Spa ra c io r e sts his argument on his contention that there w as insufficie nt proof that a de ath occ urre d as a r esult of his racke teer ing a ctivity . Spa ra c io’ s arg

ume nt c on fu se s th e c on c e pt o f “ of fe ns e guid e lin e ” wi th “ ba se of fe ns e level.” Amendment 591' s restriction on the use of judicially -found f acts a pplies only

to a deter mination of the offe nse guideline, and not the ba se off ense le vel. See United States v. Ri v e ra , 2 93 F .3 d 5 84 , 5 86 (2 d Ci r. 20 02 ) ( “ Th e pla in w or din gof Am e ndme nt 5 91 a

pp lie s on ly

to the c ho ic e of

the a pp lic a ble of fe ns e guid e lin e , n ot t o th e su bs e qu e nt s e le c tio n o f t

he ba se of

fe ns e le ve l.” ); United States v. More no , 4 21 F .3 d 1 21 7, 12 19 -2 0 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (p e r c ur iam) (“Amendment 591 direc ts the district court to apply the guideline dictated by the statute of conviction, but does not constra in the use of judicially found fa cts to select a

base of fense level within the releva

nt guide line.”). Her e, the se ntencingcourt’s se lection of § 2E1.1 a s the applica ble guideline was ba sed solely on the statute of c onviction, thus satisfying the require ments of Amendment 591. Acc ording ly , despite Spara cio’s ver y intricate a

rgument to the contra

ry , the district court did not have a uthority to reduc e his sentenc e under § 3582(c) (2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a )(2) (B ). (“ A reduc tion in . . . imprisonment is not consistent with t his policy statement and the ref

ore not authorized under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the eff

ect of loweringthe def

endant’ s applicable guideline ra ng e.”) . Moreove r, re duced to its essenc e, Spara cio’s § 3582(c )(2) argument is in reality nothing more than yet another

attempt to challeng e the suff iciency of the e vidence of his culpability for mur de r. He argue s: “ the of fe ns e of c onvic tio n d id n ot r e su lt i n th e de ath o f M ic ha e l Cia nc a g lin i,4

and Spara cio was not a

n active pa

rticipant in the murder

of Michae l Ciancag lini. There wa s no evidenc e that Spara cio had spe cific intent to kill Michael Cianca g lini. According ly , it was wrong to apply USSG 2A1.1, the guideline for f irst degree murder.” Appellant’s B r. at 17. Sparac io refuse s to acknowle dg e that the unde rlying mur der w as established be yond a rea sonable doubt at trial, a nd we subseque ntly

aff irmed that convic tion on direct appe al. Acc ording ly , his claim that the murder of Michae l Ciancag lini was not part of the c harg ed ra c ke te e ri nga c tiv ity

is m e ri tle ss. I I . F or a ll o f t he a bo ve re a so ns , w e wi ll a ff ir m th e or de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt .