Court Opinion

ID: 9482446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:50:52.745362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:00.389950
License: Public Domain

SLOVITER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the acts of Farese’s co-conspirators in a spoke-and-wheel conspiracy may not be considered in the calculation of the prisoner’s parole eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 4206 (1988), repealed by Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, § 218(a)(5), 98 Stat. 2027. Because I believe that the majority has improperly substituted its judgment for that of the United States Parole Commission, I respectfully dissent.
The majority bases its decision on 28 C.F.R. § 2.20, Ch. 13, Subch. A, Note 4 (1991), which provides that “the prisoner is not to be held accountable for activities committed by associates over which the prisoner has no control and could not have been reasonably expected to foresee.” The majority reasons that, because Farese claims that he had no contact with the other spokes in the Feola wheel, he had no “control” over his co-defendants and “could not have been reasonably expected to foresee” their activities. Thus, the majority concludes, Farese should not have been held accountable for the activities of the other members of the Feola conspiracy.
It is important to note that the exception to the rule of accountability for co-conspirators’ activities is applicable only if both conditions are met — the lack of control and the lack of reasonable foreseeability. I agree with the majority that there is no basis in this record from which the Commission could have found control by Farese of the other drug distributors. On the other hand, I disagree with the majority’s premise that Farese could not have foreseen the sale of more than 2.5 kilograms of cocaine. This is not an instance in which the very existence of additional co-conspirators would be unforeseeable to the prisoner. Nor is this a case in which the actions of the prisoner’s co-conspirators are unforeseeable, as they arguably would be if a co-conspirator in a drug ring had unilaterally robbed a bank as a means of financing his share of a drug conspiracy. This instead is a case in which both the existence of additional co-conspirators (other street dealers working for Feola) and their activities (the sale of cocaine) must have been obvious to Farese.
The majority acknowledges that the PSI report states that an undercover officer purchased 226 grams of cocaine from one of Farese’s co-defendants at Farese’s home.1 The majority concludes that *55Farese’s knowledge of this one sale can, at most, increase the amount of cocaine for which Farese can be held accountable by 226 grams. I interpret this fact differently. I think that it clearly demonstrates that Farese knew that he was not Feola’s exclusive distributor and that the cocaine conspiracy in which he was involved extended beyond himself and Feola.
Although Farese sought to minimize his participation in the drug distribution scheme to the sale of a “few ounces” of cocaine “here and there,” we cannot overlook that Farese was not a mere user but a seller. Under the majority’s acceptance of Farese’s version, we would have to conclude that Farese believed that a three level drug hierarchy (Feola to Farese to ultimate users) existed simply to distribute a few ounces “here and there.” I believe that is not a reasonable inference, and thus I disagree that Farese “could not have been reasonably expected to foresee” the existence of other street dealers acting off of Feola as he did. Indeed, it would have been unreasonable for Farese to expect that Feola set up his distribution scheme just for him and no one else.
The majority overlooks one significant aspect of the evidence that was before the Commission — Farese’s guilty plea to count 1 of the information. The information did not charge a mere two person conspiracy between Farese and Feola. On the contrary, it charged a wide ranging conspiracy. As noted in the PSI report,
Count 1 charges that from on or about January 1, 1985, up to and including November 26,1985, in the Southern District of New York, JOHN FARESE together with GARY FEOLA, EDMUND ROS-NER, NOEMI FERNANDEZ, RUBIEL MARIN a/k/a “Rubio,” JAIME ARAN-GO a/k/a “Jimmy,” IRA NEURINGER, LOUIS TARANTELLI, JOHN CERCE-NA, STEPHEN GALLO, ARTHUR TOR-SONE, a/k/a “Allen,” DANIEL WALL, SOLOMON GUMPRICHT, GEORGE ACEVEDO, a/k/a “George Pallares,” ROBERT MARRAMA a/k/a “Bo,” DOUG MacLENNAN a/k/a “Dog,” RICHARD SULLIVAN, MARK DRATCH, ARTHUR McGUIRE, and others known and unknown to the United States Attorney, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly, combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with each other to violate Sections 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A) of Title 21, United States Code.
App. at 55.
I conclude from the record before us that there is a rational basis for the Commission’s decision in this case. It is the role of the Commission, not this court, to evaluate the factual record and interpret its own regulations in the first instance. While we may set aside a decision where there is no rational basis in the record to support the Commission’s conclusions, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Commission. See Zannino v. Arnold, 531 F.2d 687, 691 (3d Cir.1976). We are construing a Commission regulation, and we will uphold the “agency’s interpretation of its own regulations ... absent compelling indications that it is wrong.” DiNapoli v. United States Parole Comm’n, 538 F.Supp. 658, 667 (M.D.Pa.1982) (citing Lucas Coal Co. v. Mine Operations Appeals, 522 F.2d 581 (3d Cir.1975)).
The majority rather cavalierly dismisses this court’s precedent in Campbell v. United States Parole Commission, 704 F.2d 106 (3d Cir.1983). In Campbell, Judge Ro-senn dissented in part because the Parole Commission held Campbell responsible for a murder for which he was never charged or prosecuted. Here, on the other hand, Farese was charged with participation in the multi-player conspiracy and had an opportunity to protest his non-involvement had he chosen to stand trial, when the government would have put on its proof. I see no reason why Farese should be in a better position than Campbell because he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge of *56the information, and thereby bypassed the proof stage.
Admittedly, the Commission may not have set forth how it reached its decision as fully as we would like. See Marshall v. Lansing, 839 F.2d 933, 942-43 (3d Cir.1988) (Commission is statutorily required to state with particularity reasons for a parole denial). However, the majority does not merely vacate the district court’s order and remand the case to the Commission to provide a statement of the factual predicate and legal basis for concluding that Farese should be held responsible for all the drugs sold by the other members of the Feola conspiracy. Had it so concluded, I could have joined. Because the majority goes further than that and remands with instructions to reduce Farese’s offense severity rating to 6, I respectfully dissent from its decision.
It is important to note that the majority’s opinion is of limited applicability. Farese pleaded guilty to crimes committed prior to November 1, 1987. Thus, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994 (1988), are not applicable to this case. See United States v. Sussman, 900 F.2d 22 (3d Cir.1990). Under the Sentencing Guidelines, in determining the guideline range for a defendant convicted of a conspiracy involving a controlled substance the sentencing court shall consider all “relevant conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.4, note 1 (1991). “Relevant conduct” includes
all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense, or that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense.
U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l) (emphasis added). The Application Notes explain that “[i]n the case of criminal activity undertaken in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy, the conduct for which the defendant ‘would be otherwise accountable’ also includes conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” Id., note 1.
We have held that, pursuant to this guideline, one convicted in a drug distribution conspiracy is accountable for the drugs sold by his confederates in furtherance of that conspiracy. See United States v. Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 1127 (3d Cir.1991). Several other circuits have also reached this conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Cardenas, 917 F.2d 683, 687 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1462-63 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 990, 112 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1991); United States v. Drew, 894 F.2d 965, 973 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1830, 108 L.Ed.2d 959 (1990); United States v. Vinson, 886 F.2d 740 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1062, 110 S.Ct. 878, 107 L.Ed.2d 961 (1990). Thus, although the majority holds that under the prior system Farese is not to be held responsible for the cocaine sold by the other members of the Feola conspiracy, it must be stressed that this decision does not reflect the status of the current law.

. The majority seems to imply that the government’s allegations in this regard are open to question. 953 F.2d at 53. However, there is no indication in the record that Farese challenged any of the factual assertions made in the PSI report,, as he was entitled to after being given an opportunity to review the report prior to sentencing. Thus, we may "assume that the factual information in the report was correct.” United *55States ex rel. Goldberg v. Warden, 622 F.2d 60, 66 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871, 101 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed.2d 91 (1980).