Opinion ID: 149657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guideline Selection

Text: [A] district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range.... [T]he Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). To select the correct guideline for the offense, the court must first consult the statutory index in the Guidelines Manual. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(a). For violations of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), the index specifies two guidelines: section 2M3.3 and section 2M3.2. When more than one guideline is listed for a count of conviction under a given statutory section, the court is to apply the guideline that is most appropriate for the defendant's offense conduct in that count. United States v. Irving, 554 F.3d 64, 73 (2d Cir.2009). Pairing the appropriate guideline with the statutory offense is rendered somewhat uncertain by the fact that neither of the cross-referenced guidelines fits neatly with the several forms of offense conduct covered by section 793(e). That section punishes a person who commits either of two types of offense conduct: willfully transmits classified information to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains such information and fails to deliver it to a person entitled to receive it. [2] Section 2M3.2 reads: Gathering National Defense Information (a) Base Offense Level: (1) 35, if top secret information was gathered; or (2) 30, otherwise. [3] U.S.S.G. § 2M3.2. Section 2M3.3 reads: Transmitting National Defense Information: Disclosure of Classified Cryptographic Information; Unauthorized Disclosure to a Foreign Government or a Communist Organization of Classified Information by Government Employee; Unauthorized Receipt of Classified Information (a) Base Offense Level: (1) 29, if top secret information; or (2) 24, otherwise. Id. § 2M3.3. A somewhat similarly worded guideline, section 2M3.1, covers  Gathering or Transmitting National Defense Information to Aid a Foreign Government  and specifies base offense levels of 42 and 37, depending on whether the information is top secret. See U.S.S.G. 2M3.1. This guideline is evidently designed to correlate with 18 U.S.C. § 794, which is entitled Gathering or delivering information to aid a foreign government. The Commission's thinking in making the distinction between conduct covered by sections 2M3.2 and 2M3.3 is not obvious. The former is explicitly limited to gathering, but the latter, carrying lower base offense levels, covers some conduct of seemingly equal seriousness, such as disclosure to a foreign government ... of classified information by a government employee. U.S.S.G. § 2M3.3 (bold face and underlining removed). Indeed, it is difficult to understand why disclosure to a foreign government is within section 2M3.3, the most lenient of the three guidelines, at the same time that transmitting... to aid a foreign government is within section 2M3.1, the most severe of the three. In any event, what is clear is that the second most severe guideline of this trio, section 2M3.2, covers gathering classified information, and the least severe of this trio, section 2M3.3, does not cover gathering such information. The indictment to which Malki pled guilty charged that he knowingly and willfully retained national defense documents in violation of section 793(e). Neither of the two guidelines that the Commission has cross-referenced to section 793(e) explicitly covers retain[ing] classified documents. [4] However, section 2M3.3 explicitly covers unauthorized receipt of classified information. Since the conduct of retain[ing], which Makli acknowledged in his guilty plea, is similar to unauthorized receipt and significantly different from gathering, it seems clear that section 2M3.3, rather than section 2M3.2, is the appropriate guideline for his case. See United States v. Aquino, 555 F.3d 124, 130-31 (3d Cir.2009). [5] The Government concedes that the District Court was not permitted to consider Malki's relevant conduct or to rely on the PSR's finding that Malki actively gathered the classified material in order to select § 2M3.2 as the relevant guideline. See Government's Br. at 21. The Guidelines specify that the relevant guideline is the one applicable to the offense of conviction ( i.e., the offense conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(a). See Irving, 554 F.3d at 73. The Government argues, however, that the District Court's selection of the improper guideline was harmless error because Judge Korman stated at sentencing that he intended to impose a sentence within what I believe is the guideline range and which, I believe, is a reasonable one, and that anything less would be inappropriate given the finding that he was gathering this material. Despite a sentencing court's misapprehension of its authority, we will not remand where the record indicate[s] clearly that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it had an accurate understanding of its authority. United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651, 665 (2d Cir.2008) (emphasis added); see generally United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925 (2d Cir.1988). However, where the sentencing transcript leaves doubt that the District Court would have imposed the same sentence, remand is appropriate. See Sanchez, 517 F.3d at 666. In the pending case, the selection of the wrong guideline cannot be disregarded since Judge Korman stated his intent to impose a sentence within the guideline range and did so, sentencing at the bottom of what he considered to be the applicable sentencing range. Although he also stated that a lesser sentence would be inappropriate, we cannot be confident that he would have imposed the same sentence had he understood that the bottom of the correct guideline was 58 months less than the bottom of the guideline he thought was applicable.