NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 3751 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v . RI CA RD O W AS HING TO N, Appe l l ant

On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 1- 08- c r - 00380- 001) Di s tr i c t Judge : Hon. Syl vi aH. Ra m bo Su bm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Apr i l 13, 2010 BE FO RE : FISHE R, HA RD IMAN and C OWEN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: Apr i l 16, 2010)

OP I NI ON

COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge2

R icard o Wash in g to n ap p eals th e j u d g m en t o f th e D istrict C o u rt sen ten cin g h im to a 1 6 8 -m o n th term

o f im p riso n m en t. Wash in g to n co n ten d s th at th e sen ten ce is sub stan tiv ely

u n reaso n ab le as (1 ) th e D istrict C o u rt’s d esig n atio n o f Wash in g to n as a care er of fend er si gn ific antl y

ov er st at ed his c ri m inal hist ory and (2) the Dis tr ic t Cou rt fa i l e d t o pr ope r l y

e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on wi th r e s pe c t t o the c r a c k c oc a i ne - powde r c oc a i ne d i s p ar i ty , i n l i g h t

o f th e c u rr e n t

tr e n dt o w ar de l i mi n a t i n g th e d i s p ar i ty . W e w i l l a f f i rm. I . BA CK GR OU ND W a s hi ngt on pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ount

of pos s e s s i on wi th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e fi ve gr a m s or m or e of c oc a i ne ba s e i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U. S. C. § 841( a ) and one c ount of po ss es si on of

a fir ea rm by a fel on in violat ion o f 1 8 U .S.C. § 92 2(g)(1). Th e pre sen ten ce in v estig atio n rep o rt (“P S R ”) in d icatedth at Wash in g to n h adf o u r p rio r adu lt c onvi c t i ons , whi c h qua l i fi e d hi m a s ac ar e e r

offe nde r unde r U. S. S. G. § 4B1. 1. The PSR d eterm in edth at h is o f

f en se lev el w as 3 1 an dh is crim in al h isto ry categ o ry (du e to h is statu s as a career o f

f en d er) w as V I, lead in g to a G u id elin es ran g e o f 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s. At the s ente ncing h eari ng , W as hing ton o bj ec te d to the Gu idel ines rang e, co n ten d in g th at h e w as en titledto a d o w n w ardd ep artu re p u rsu an t to U .S .S .G . § § 4 A 1 .3 (b )(1 ) an d5 K 2 .0 o n th e g ro u n dth at h is crim in al h isto ry categ o ry g reatly o v erstatedth e serio u sn ess o f h is crim in al h isto ry . T h e D istrict C o u rt d en iedh is req u est e xpl a i ni ng tha t

hi s de s i gna t i on a s ac ar e e r offe nde r wa s jus t i fi e d a s two of hi s four pr i or c onvi c t i ons i nvol ve d nar c ot i c s tr a ffi c ki ng, one of whi c h i nvol ve d afi r e arm . W a s hi ngt on3

also req u esteda v arian ce f ro m th e G u id elin es b asedo n v ario u s § 3 5 5 3 (a) f acto rs, i nc l udi ng the di s par i ty

be twe e n c r a c k c oc a i ne and powde r c oc a i ne Gui de l i ne s . The D i s tr i c t C o u rt i m p o s e dat e rm

o f i m p r i s o n m e n t

o f 1 6 8 m o n th s , w h i c h r e f

l e c t e datw e n tym o n th v arian ce b elo w th e crackco cain e G u id elin es. I I . STANDARD OF REV I EW Th is Co urt r evie ws the proce du ra l and substantive r ea sonablenes s of a distri ct co u rt’s sen ten ce f

o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n . Se e Uni t e d Stat es v . Le v i ns on , 543 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) . W e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e for s ubs t ant i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s t o de t e rm i ne “whether t

he final s ente nce, wh er ever it m ay li e within the perm is si ble s tatutory rang e, was pre m is ed up on approp ri at e and ju dici ou s c on si dera ti on of the r el evant fact ors. ” Un ited States v. Schw ei tz er , 454 F.3d 19 7, 20 4 (3d Cir. 20 06 ). I I I . DI SCUSSI ON Af te r Un ited States v. Bo oker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , di s tr i c t c ourt s a dhe r e t o a thre e- st ep process wh en se ntenci ng defend ants . Fir st , they m ust “ ca lc ulat e a

defend ant’ s Gu idel ines se ntence prec is el y as they wo uld h ave before Bo oker .” Un ited States v. Gu nter , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( c i t i ng Uni t e d Stat es v . Ki ng , 454 F. 3d 187, 19 6 (3d Cir. 20 06 )) . Sec on d, they m ust “ fo rm al ly

rul[e] on the m otions of

bo th part ie s and stat[e] on the r ec ord w hether they ar e granting a depart

ure and ho w that departure affects the Guideli nes c al culati on , and tak[ e] into ac coun t [ou r] Circ uit’ s pre - Bo oker case law, wh ic h con ti nu es to have advisory fo rc e. ” Id . “F in ally , th ey are req u iredto ‘ex ercise4

[] [the i r ] di s c r e t i on by

c ons i de r i ng the r e l e va nt

[§ 3553( a ) fa c t or s ’ ] i n s e t t i ng the s e nt e nc e the y

i m pos e r e gar dl e s s whe the r

i t var i e s fr om

the s e nt e nc e c a l c ul a t e d unde r the Gu idel ines .” Id . ( inte rnal ci tati on s om itte d). W a s hi ngt on c ha l l e nge s the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons a s t o the s e c ond and th irdstep s. F irst, Wash in g to n co n ten d s th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredin d en yin g h is re qu es t for a dow nw ar d d eparture . He c on ce des that und er the Guideli nes he quali fies as a career o f

f en d er; h o w ev er, h e co n ten d s th at du e to h is y o u n g ag e at th e tim e o f h is f irst two c onvi c t i ons ( a ge s 18 and 19) , and the s m a l l a m ount of c oc a i ne found on hi m a t the t i m e of hi s thi r d a rr e s t , he i s not the ty pe of i ndi vi dua l the Se nt e nc i ng Comm i s s i on s ought t o t ar ge t wi th c ar e e r

offe nde r s t a t us . I n s hort , he c ont e nds tha t the Se nt e nc i ng Co mm is si on did n ot inte nd to target low-le vel drug d ea le rs , s uch as him se lf, with car ee r o f f en d er statu s. Th e r e c or d i nd i c a t e s that

W a s hi ng t on ’ s fi r s t

arr e s t oc c ur r e d w he n h e wa s 18 . He w as sen ten cedto f

iv e m o n th s in carceratio n f o r n arco tics traf

f ick in g w ith a f

irearm . L ess th an o n e y e ar

l at e r , w h i l e o n p ar o l e , W a s h i n g t o n w a s arr e s t e df o r p o s s e s s i o n o f

af i r e arm, es ca pe, and re si st ing arr es t. Tw o y ears afte r he was re le as ed frompris on , he was ar re st ed fo r nar coti cs tr afficking. Wi thin se ven m on ths of h is re le as e from pris on fo r that co n v ictio n , h e w as arrestedf o r th e in stan t o f

f en se. T h is crim in al h isto ry ref lects r e c i di vi s t t e nde nc i e s wi th r e s pe c t

t o na r c ot i c s tr a ffi c ki ng a nd fi r e arm s pos s e s s i on, both of
w h ich th e S en ten cin g C o mm issio n so u g h t to targ et w ith th e career o f f en d er G u id elin e.5

The Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de ni a l of hi s r e que s t for adownwa r d de pa rt

ur e wa s not u n reaso n ab le as th e reco rdsup p o rts h is d esig n atio n as a career o f f en d er. Se c ond, W a s hi ngt on c ont e nds tha t the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d i n not

gr ant i ng a gr e a t e r var i anc e ba s e d on the c urr e nt m ove m e nt

t owa r d e l i m i na t i ng the c r a c k c oc a i ne and powde r

c oc a i ne s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty . W a s hi ngt on poi nt s t o the De pa rtm e nt of Ju stice’s statedp o sitio n in f av o r o f elim in atin g th e d isp arity . S ee R esto rin g

F a irn ess to F ed era l S en ten cin g : A d

d ressin g th e C ra ck-P o w d

er D isp a rity , He ar i ng be for e the Subc omm . on Cr i m e and Dr ugs of the S. Comm . on the Judi c i ary , 111th Cong. ( 2009) (t es ti m on y

of Lann y A. Breuer , Ass is tant Attorney General , Cri m inal Divisi on , Unite d S tates D ep artm en t o f

Ju stice), a va ila b le a t ht t

p:judi c i ary . s e na t e . gov/

pdf/ 09- 04- 29Br e ue r Te s t i m ony . pdf

. Addi t i ona l l y , s i nc e the part i e s fi l e d the i ns t ant a ppe a l , the Uni t e d St a t e s Se na t e unani m ous l y pa s s e d abi l l de c r e a s i ng the s e nt e nc i ng di s par i ty fr om 1 0 0 :1 to 2 0 :1 . See Fair

Sentenci ng Act of 2 01 0, S. 17 89 , 111 th Co ng . ( 20 10 ). Sim il ar leg islatio n is p en d in g b ef o re th e H o u se o f

R ep resen tativ es. In granti ng a 20-m on th vari ance , the Distri ct Co urt e xp la ined that

Wa shington ’s pr i or r e c or d di d not

jus t i fy any gr e a t e r var i anc e . The Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de c i s i on wa s not un re as on able as it

is supp orte d b y

the r ec ord. Fu rther, un ti l l egis lati on is enac te d re garding the cr ac k-po wd er dispar it y , this Cou rt

will no t dis turb se ntence s i m po se d
w ith in th e cu rren t sen ten cin g law .6

I V . CONCLUSI ON F o r th e reaso n s set f

o rth ab o v e, w e w ill af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.