2004 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 4-26-2004 

# U S A v . C l a rk
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 . 03-2589

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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_2004

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 2004 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 . C l a rk " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 775. 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_2004/775NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No
. 03-2589
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. TAMMY CLARK,

Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 02-cr -00018-04) Distri ct Judge: Hon. Gary L. Lancaster

Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) April 1, 2004 Before: ALITO , FISHERand ALDISE RT , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: April26, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
AL DI SE RT , Circuit

Judge
. Be cau se w e w rite f

or th e pa rties o nly, the bac kgr oun d of this c ase is no t set forth
. This appealby Tammy Clar k requir es us to de cide whether her sent ence should be2

vacated and t

he proceedi ngs remanded for r esentenc ing with instruc tions to the di stri ct court t o clari fy whyit di d not grant a downward departure f or sent encing manipul ation. In the docu ment “D efenda nt’s Position w ith Respec t to Sentencing Factors,” C lark contended befor e the di stri ct court that hol ding Clark r esponsibl e for nine firearms was improper bec ause the gove rnment al one deter mined the l ength of the sti ng operati on and, thus, the number of fi rearms i nvolved. Clark asked t he dist rict court not

to impose a three-le vel offens e incre ase h olding Clark respo nsible for all nin e firea rms, p ursua nt to Un ited S tates Sen tenc ing Co mm issio n, Guideline s Manual , § 2K2.1(b) (1)(C) ( Nov. 2000), and t o reduce the offense l evel by four because Cl ark played a minimal role in the ill egal sal es, pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 3B 1.2(a). The district c ourt found t hat Clar k was less culpable than other parti cipant s in the conspir acy and that he r rol e could be des cribed a s minor but not mini mal. The di stri ct court ac cordingly gr anted Clar k a two-leve l reduction pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3B 1.2( b). Because the offe nse invol ved nine fi rearms, however, the district court increased t

he offense le vel by

three pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) (C). Wit h an offense l evel of 15 and a cri minal hi story

categor y of I , the Guideline s yi elded a se ntence of 18 t o 24 months impris onm ent. Clark cont ends that

“[t]he Distri ct Court e rred i n not consi dering t he sentenc ing manipulat ion aspect

of this case.” (Br. of Appell ant at 13.) She as ks thi s court to ins truct the distric t court to expla in w hy it did no t grant a dow nw ard d epartu re, but a t no tim e did3

Clark requ est or e ven m ention a dow nw ard d epartu re before the district co urt. Clark’s relevant argument s in “Defendant ’s Posi tion wit h Respect t o Sentenci ng Factors ” were li mited t o the cont ention t hat she s hould not r eceive a t hree-l evel enhancement for

nine fi rearms pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 2K 2.1(b )(1)(C ). In that d ocum ent, she d id no t men tion a d ow nw ard d epartu re. Lik ew ise, at the s enten cing h earing , she d id not reques t a downward depart ure; r ather, her argument s focused on her alle ged minimal role i n the criminal activit y and t he all eged unfair

ness that other

parti cipant s in the ill egal firearms sale s recei ved favorabl e sentenc es because t hey pl eaded guil ty

rather than going to trial. The district c ourt di d consider – and reje ct – Clar

k’s argument

that s he should not be held re sponsibl e for nine firearms, pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) (C), beca use the government prol onged its invest igati on merely to include more fir earms. I t is not cle ar that Cl ark has chal lenged the dist rict court’ s conclus ion on thi s iss ue, but even if she had, the d istrict cou rt did not err in dete rmin ing that C lark wa s res pon sible for nin e fir earm s. As n oted b y the prob ation o ffice r, Clark particip ated in the ac tual ex chan ge of six firearms and in the ordering of three more firearms. The district co urt stated that it had review ed the Prese ntenc e Inv estigatio n R epor t, which concluded that “[t]he probation officer has no information concerning the offense or the offe nder which would warrant a depart ure from the prescr ibed sent encing guidelines.” ( PSIR ¶ 74; App. at 28- 29.) I n sentencing Clark without granti ng any4

dow nwa rd departure, the d istrict court did not com mit a plain error affecting C lark’s substantial rights and seri ously affecting the fai rness, integrity or publi c reputation of judici al proce edings. The cases ci ted by Clark do not l ead to the conclusi on that s he
wa rran ts a n ew sen tenc ing hea ring on d ow nw ard dep artu re. See United Stat es v. Drozdowski , 313 F.3d 819, 825 n.3 (3d Cir . 2002) ( concludi ng there was no merit in a defendant’s argument that he should have been granted a dow nward departure because “the d isparity betw een D rozd ow ski’s se ntenc e and those of h is co-d efen dants wa s due to allege dly impro per ch arging decisio ns by the Go vern men t”); United Stat es v. Okey , 47 F.3d 238, 240- 241 (7th Cir . 1995) ( noting t he reluc tance of s ome courts t o recogniz e sentencing manipulat ion cla ims and rej ecti ng a defendant’ s argument t hat the government unduly prolong ed its investigation). We have considered a ll cont entions rais ed by t he parti es and concl ude that no fur ther disc uss ion is ne ces sary. The judgment of the dist rict court wil l be affi rmed.