Opinion ID: 204743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court's Analysis and Sentence

Text: Addressing the issue of the 6-point enhancement for the rape charge while Conca was in failure to report status, the court opined as follows: The issue here is, of course, whether or not there was enough information in the presentence investigation report and now with the supplemental testimony of the two witnesses that just testified before this Court to establish that there was a sex offense committed against someone other than a minor at the time when the defendant was in a failure to register status as specified in United States Sentencing Guidelines 2A3.5(b)(1)(A), which references 18 U.S.Code Section 2241 through 2244, 18 U.S.Code Section 2251 and 2421 and 2423. And matching the testimony the Court heard against that guideline and those Penal Law sections, the Court does have enough information to reliably conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the six-point enhancement is applied and, therefore, is going to apply that. The District Court further remarked that it th[ought] that the Government has afforded the defendant with respect to that enhancement every possible due process consideration that it could give. With respect to Conca's challenge to the criminal history category established in the PSR, the District Court observed that the challenge had to do with the scoring of an offense as a juvenile matter and whether or not it ought to be scored as an adult and that depends basically on how the defendant was treated. The court stated that its understanding was [Conca] was adjudicated a youthful offender, but then he violated after that and was revoked and went away and did some time. Accordingly, the court concluded that Conca was treated as an adult offender and it's gonna (sic) be scored that way. Addressing Conca's request for a departure or variance from the assigned criminal history category of VI, the court stated: [A]djudication when he was 16 years old, under a lot of circumstances, might notmight drive the Court to consider a 4A1.3 reduction from a 6 to a 5. But, here, the main focus of consideration of criminal history is two-fold: It's the seriousness of past criminal conductthe Texas conduct is serious; it's also the likelihood of recidivism. And based upon, unfortunately, Mr. Conca's rough upbringing, the problems he had before he even got out into society and then the way it's been handled, along with his drug addiction and the sexual proclivities, the Court thinks there's a high degree of the possibility of recidivism and that's why I think a 6 is entirely appropriate. The court went on to recognize that the Sentencing Guidelines were a factor that must be considered along with the other factors listed in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) and stated: With respect to those 3553 factors, the Court thinks there's a strong need for punishment of the defendant for what he's done, there certainly is an overriding need for people in the public, and women especially, for protection from Mr. Conca, there's a need to specifically deter him from continuing in that conduct, there's a need to send a message to anybody else in the world who would consider that type of conduct and the Court is gonna (sic) sentence him. Hopefully he'll get some help and rehabilitation while he's in the Bureau of Prisons. Recognizing that a very high and unusual Guidelines range was implicated in this case for the offense of failure to register, the court nevertheless adopted the total offense level of 19 and criminal history category of VI developed in the PSR. Accordingly, the court determined that the Guidelines range for imprisonment was 63 to 78 months and sentenced Conca at the high end of the Guidelines range, 78 months. The District Court explained its sentence as follows: The Court places your sentence at the high end of the guideline range because of the nature and character of the conduct in your past that's already been outlined in the report, articulated in this courtroom and commented upon at length. Conca timely appealed his sentence. On appeal, Conca contends that the District Court committed procedural error in calculating his criminal history score under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines by including his 1996 youthful offender adjudication, which he refers to as a juvenile conviction, as an adult conviction.