Opinion ID: 4564550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kelly

Text: Kelly brings several challenges to his concurrent life sentences. Five of those challenges are unique to him. He asserts four procedural defects in the District Court’s decision, and he claims that the sentences were substantively unreasonable. We review procedural-soundness and substantive-unreasonableness challenges for abuse of discretion. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, “[w]e exercise plenary review of a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and review its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Welshans, 892 F.3d 566, 573 (3d Cir. 2018). Four of the issues are meritless. The other leaves Kelly’s sentence unaffected. 1. Dangerous-weapon enhancement. Kelly asserts that the District Court erred in applying the two-level enhancement for possession of “a dangerous weapon” in connection with a controlled-substances offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). We disagree. The government can show possession simply “by establishing that a temporal and spatial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” United States v. Napolitan, 762 F.3d 297, 309 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). If it does so, the burden 42 Because we reach this conclusion, we address neither Hernandez’s other sentencing challenges nor the effect of the mandatory minimum error at Count II. 84 shifts to the defendant to show that “it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11. Here, Cordaress Rogers testified that Kelly supplied drugs to numerous younger dealers and helped to introduce guns to the South Side, that a lot of people had guns, and that guns were stashed on the blocks. The prevalence of firearms was also described in other testimony. This evidence establishes the requisite nexus, and Kelly gives no indication of clear improbability. 2. Organizer or leader increase. Kelly contends that the District Court erred in applying a four-level increase for being “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). When determining whether to apply this enhancement, a court should consider, among other things, “the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, . . . the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, [and] the nature and scope of the illegal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. As just noted, the evidence indicated that Kelly supplied a substantial amount of crack to the younger generation of street-level dealers, associated with other key suppliers such as Cruz and Hernandez, and helped to introduce guns into the South Side-Parkway rivalry. In this light, we cannot say the District Court clearly erred in imposing the enhancement. 3. Calculation of criminal-history score. Kelly next contests his classification as a career offender for purposes of his criminal-history category. Under the Guidelines, a defendant is a career offender if he “has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). An offense committed before the age of 18 may qualify “if it is classified as an adult conviction under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the defendant was convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1. Kelly argues that one of his 85 predicate convictions, a November 1994 conviction in New York state court for attempted murder, was not so classified. The District Court found that it was, based largely on a “Sentence & Commitment” form of the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. This finding was not clearly erroneous. As the District Court pointed out, on the form there were two options after the line “The defendant having been.” Gov’t Supp. App. 165. One was “convicted of the crime(s) of”; the other, “adjudicated a Youthful Offender.” The former was checked, suggesting Kelly’s conviction was the same as that for an adult. At the bottom of the form was written “YO denied.” The District Court reasonably inferred that this meant “youthful offender denied.” Kelly App. 518. Finally, simply because Kelly was marked a “Juvenile Offender” on the form is not, under applicable New York law, indicative of a non-adult conviction. See In re Raymond G., 715 N.E.2d 486, 488 (N.Y. 1999); Matter of Vega, 393 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (N.Y. 1979). 4. Use-of-violence enhancement. Kelly points out that the District Court failed to consider his objection to the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2). The Government essentially concedes the point, arguing only that the District Court addressed Kelly’s use of violence when it rendered its decision. But, of course, the sentencing judge must make “an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Nevertheless, because we reject Kelly’s other procedural challenges, this error does not affect his total offense level. 5. Substantive reasonableness. “[I]f the district court’s sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district 86 court provided.” Tomko, 562 F.3d at 568. In rendering its judgment, the District Court said: “[Kelly’s] not here for an isolated event, he’s here for a decade-long conspiracy that involved multiple episodes of violence and harm to innocen[ts] in the community . . . . The defendant was at the core of this enterprise and these violent acts.” Kelly App. 528. The District Court noted Kelly’s “involve[ment] in drug and gang activity from a very young age.” Kelly App. 528. It observed that “[h]e was a leader of the gang . . . and was a participant and present at many of the violent activities that occurred here.” Kelly App. 528. A reasonable jurist easily could have imposed the life sentences the District Court did.