Court Opinion

ID: 2964578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:52.105728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.899342
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1371

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   MODESTO SALDANA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

            The opinion of this Court, issued on March 31, 1997, is amended
        as follows:

            On page 10, line 5 of 3rd full paragraph, replace "consecutive"
        with "concurrent".

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1371

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   MODESTO SALDANA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Diana L. Maldonado, Federal Defender Office, for appellant.
            __________________
            John  M. Griffin,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  with  whom
            ________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States  Attorney, was on brief for  the United
        _______________
        States.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 31, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 BOUDIN,  Circuit  Judge.    Modesto Saldana  appeals  to
                          ______________

            contest his  prison  sentence.    He  argues  that  delay  in

            prosecuting him caused prejudice that should have been offset

            by a downward departure.  The government, as usual, says that

            a refusal to  depart is not reviewable and, in any event, was

            not  error.  The merits of the case are straightforward; what

            is  more difficult  is to  bring some  order to  a recurring,

            inherently confusing issue created  by an overlap between the

            question of our  authority to  review and the  merits of  the

            case.

                                          I.

                 Saldana,  a  citizen  of  the  Dominican  Republic,  was

            convicted  in January 1991 of  a drug offense  in state court

            and  given probation.   In  August and  October 1991,  he was

            arrested by local authorities and charged with two additional

            drug offenses committed while still on probation.  But he was

            thereafter deported  in October  1991 before being  tried for

            the newly charged crimes.  

                 Thereafter,  Saldana reentered the United States without

            permission from the Attorney  General.  In April 1993  he was

            arrested and drugs were found on his person, giving rise to a

            fourth state drug charge.  Following state court proceedings,

            he was sentenced to  30 months in state prison  as punishment

            for four  different offenses:  the January 1991  offense, for

            which probation was revoked; the two later 1991 offenses; and

            the April 1993 offense.

                 The  Immigration and  Naturalization  Service  lodged  a

            detainer against Saldana at the time of his arrest.  In March

            1994, it appears that federal agents interviewed him while he

            was serving his state sentence.  He was not, however, charged

            with the federal  offense at  that time.   Saldana served  20

            months of  his 30-month state  sentence and  was released  in

            December 1994.

                 Shortly afterwards,  he was indicted by  a federal grand

            jury and  charged with  reentering the United  States without

            permission after having been deported on account of a serious

            drug  offense.    8  U.S.C.      1326(a),  1326(b)(2).    The

            indictment was  well within the  limitations period.   See 18
                                                                   ___

            U.S.C.    3282.  Saldana pled guilty to this charge in August

            1995.  He  was sentenced  by the district  court in  February

            1996 to 70 months' imprisonment.

                 The   sentence  was  the   minimum  allowed  within  the

            guideline range (70 to 87 months) as computed by the district

            court.  The computation  reflected a base offense level  of 8

            for illegal reentry, U.S.S.G.    2L1.2(a), adjusted upward by

            16 levels because Saldana had been deported for an aggravated

            felony, id.   2L1.2(b)(2), and reduced by 3 levels due to his
                    ___

            acceptance  of  responsibility,  id.      3E1.1.    Saldana's
                                             ___

            criminal history  category (V) reflected the  four prior drug

            convictions,  three of  which  occurred after  his arrest  in

            April 1993.

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

                 At sentencing Saldana argued that if he had been charged

            with  the  federal  offense  while still  serving  his  state

            sentence,  the  federal  sentence  would,  under  U.S.S.G.   

            5G1.3(c), have been  set to run  concurrently with the  state

            sentence.   That provision gives the  district court latitude

            to  make a new sentence concurrent to or consecutive with one

            already  being served;  and,  as it  stood  prior to  a  1995

            amendment,  the  section's  application  note 3  contained  a

            comment that  might  have supported  a  concurrent  sentence.

            U.S.S.G.   5G1.3, comment. n.3 (Nov. 1994).1  

                 Concurrency  would have effectively  subtracted from the

            federal sentence any  time served on the  state sentence; and

            Saldana asked  the district court to achieve  the same result

            through  a  downward  departure.   With  less  basis  in  the

            guidelines,  he  also argued  that  this  hypothetical single

            sentencing would also  have resulted in a much lower criminal

            history  score.2    Taking  this lower  score  together  with

                                
            ____________________

                 1The comment,  since repealed,  U.S.S.G. App.  C, Amend.
            535 (Nov. 1995), suggested that the federal court compute the
            sentence  as if the offenses had been the subject of a single
            federal  sentence.    This  would help  Saldana  because  the
            guidelines ignore  less serious crimes sentenced  at the same
            time  as a more serious one where the offense level disparity
            is quite large.  U.S.S.G.   3D1.4.

                 2His imaginative  theory was that the  three latest drug
            offenses  would  not  have  been   prior  convictions  adding
                                               _____
            automatically  to his score if  he had been  sentenced at the
            same time for those offenses and the reentry offense.  But if
            the  criminal history  score  were computed  in this  lenient
            fashion,  it  would  arguably  have  underrepresented  actual
            criminal history, warranting an upward departure.  U.S.S.G.  

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            concurrency, Saldana argued that his  proper federal sentence

            should be 21 to 31 months.  

                 In explaining its refusal  to depart, the district court

            said that departures were possible when the case fell outside

            the "heartland" of the guidelines; that the heartland "has to

            do  with  the nature  of  the offense  or the  nature  of the

            offender";  that  nothing  about  the  offense  here  or  the

            defendant made this "an unusual  out of the heartland  case";

            and that the court  would be more sympathetic to  a departure

            request  if  the  government  had  deliberately  delayed  the

            prosecution for improper reasons.  The court then said:

                      There is nothing in  this case to suggest that
                 there  was any deliberate  misconduct or deliberate
                 omission on the  part of the  Government.  While  I
                 recognize that  this is  not a  case  in which  due
                 process  is claimed,  the due  process argument  is
                 being made, it seems  to me that if a  departure is
                 going  to be made where there  is nothing about the
                 offender   and  nothing  about   the  offense  that
                 suggests  the case [is]  outside of  the heartland,
                 that there should be something to suggest more than
                 mere delay, mere passage of time to  make this case
                 suitable  for  a   heartland  downward   departure.
                 Accordingly as  I said, I will not grant the motion
                 for downward departure.

                 Saldana now  appeals,  arguing that  the district  court

            misunderstood its  authority to depart.   The government says

            that we  have no  jurisdiction to hear  the appeal.   It also

            says  that  the  district  court did  not  misunderstand  its

            authority and that its refusal to depart was sound.  Finally,

                                
            ____________________

            4A1.3.

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            it says  that Saldana  has misconstrued section  5G1.3(c) and

            that the sentence would have had to be consecutive even if it

            had been imposed during the term of the state sentence.

                                         II.

                 The jurisdictional argument made  by the government  has

            become a recurring distraction.  Under 18 U.S.C.   3742(a), a

            defendant may appeal from his sentence, inter alia, if it was
                                                    __________

            imposed "in violation of law" or by "an incorrect application

            of  the sentencing  guidelines";  but the  defendant may  not

            appeal from a  sentence within the  guideline range if  there

            was no  legal error and the  only claim is that  the district

            court acted unreasonably in declining  to depart.  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Tucker, 892 F.2d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 1989).
            ______    ______

                 Where the district court refuses  to depart because of a

            misunderstanding as to the law, the legal error is reviewable

            under one or both of the  two quoted rubrics.  United  States
                                                           ______________

            v. Romolo, 937 F.2d  20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).   But confusion,
               ______

            and  many "jurisdictional" objections, have resulted from the

            overlap  between  the  jurisdictional issue  and  the merits.

            Read  literally, 18 U.S.C.    3742(a) might  suggest that the

            authority to review a  "violation" or "incorrect application"

            vanishes when  the appellate court decides  that the district

            court did not commit a legal error.  
                      ___

                 A  more sensible  reading  of the  statute  is that  the

            defendant has a  right to appeal to present a  claim of legal
                                                           _____

                                         -6-
                                         -6-

            error, or  at least a  colorable claim.   The balance  of the

            statute bears  out this reading.   It says that  the court on

            review shall determine whether there  was such a legal error,

            shall remand if  there was such  an error, and if  not "shall

            affirm" the  sentence.  18 U.S.C.   3742(f).  It does not say

            "shall  dismiss the appeal."   See Romolo, 937  F.2d at 22-23
                                           ___ ______

            (stating  that appellate  jurisdiction  exists  if  defendant

            "advances a `purely legal' issue").

                 Plainly Saldana  is  claiming that  the  district  court

            committed two legal errors:   by saying or implying  (1) that

            departures can be based  only upon the nature of  the offense

            or the  nature of the  offender and (2) that  a departure for

            government  delay can only be based on misconduct.  These are

            colorable readings of the district court opinion.  And, taken

            alone,  the  first  proposition  is  wrong,  and  the  second

            arguably  so.  Why, then,  is the government  arguing that we

            have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal?

                 The answer,  perhaps, is partly  habit and a  refusal to

            leave out any possible argument, especially  one framed as an

            attack on "jurisdiction."  But partly it is our own fault for

            failing to follow a consistent course.  Compare, e.g., United
                                                    _______  ____  ______

            States  v.  Morrison, 46  F.3d  127, 132-33  (1st  Cir. 1995)
            ______      ________

            (dismissing appeal),  with United  States v. Romero,  32 F.3d
                                  ____ ______________    ______

            641, 654  (1st Cir. 1994) (affirming  sentence).  Henceforth,

            where the defendant colorably claims that a refusal to depart

                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            rests upon a  legal error--and so  alleges that the  sentence
                                               _______

            was  imposed  in   violation  of  law  or  by   an  incorrect

            application of  the guidelines--the government  might wish to

            save  time by  focusing on  the question  of whether  a legal

            error  occurred.   Cf.  Bell v.  Hood,  327 U.S.  678, 681-83
                               ___  ____     ____

            (1946)  (jurisdiction may  be  assumed  to determine  whether

            complaint states a federal claim).    

                 We do not mean to say that  the so-called jurisdictional

            objection is always inapt.   It would be perfectly  valid if,

            as rarely happens, the  defendant's only claim on  appeal was

            that,  although  the   district  court  had   understood  its

            authority, it  abused its discretion in  declining to depart.

            And  if the  latter claim is  advanced along with  a claim of

            legal error, the government is within its rights to remind us

            that  the abuse of discretion claim is not subject to review.

            See Tucker, 892 F.2d at 9-10.
            ___ ______

                                         III.

                 In turning  now to the  merits, the question  is whether

            the district court did misunderstand its authority to depart.

            What  the  district  court  thought  was  the  scope  of  its
                                        _______

            authority is perhaps a  question of fact, but it  is one that

            we  must  answer  ourselves,  by   reviewing  the  sentencing

            transcript.  Whether the district court's belief was mistaken

            is plainly a legal question  that we review de novo.   United
                                                        _______    ______

            States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996).
            ______    ___________

                                         -8-
                                         -8-

                 The first proposition  attributed to the district  court

            by  Saldana, and claimed to  be error, is  that the guideline

            heartland is defined by  the nature of the defendant  and the

            nature  of the offense, and  that departures are  to be based

            upon  the same  two variables.   The  district court  did use

            approximately these words.  Taken at face value, they are not

            a complete statement of the possible bases for departure.

                 True, many  of the  possible factors that  could provide

            grounds for  departure relate to  the nature of  the offense,

            and  others  relate  to  the  defendant.3     But  these  two

            categories  do not exhaust  all possibilities.   Merely as an

            example, United States v. Koon, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2053 (1996),
                     _____________    ____

            approved a departure based partly upon the prosecution of the

            same conduct by a second sovereign.

                 But, of course, whatever the district court said, it did

            not  mean  that   departures  could  only  be  based  on  the
                                                 ____

            defendant's conduct  or the  defendant.  We  know this--quite

            apart from common sense--because the district court explained

            that it would have  considered a departure in this  very case

            if the defendant's  sentence had been increased because  of a

            delay caused by prosecution  misconduct, a variable unrelated

            to the defendant's circumstances or to his own conduct.

                                
            ____________________

                 3See, e.g., United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619-20
                  ___  ____  _____________    ______
            (1st  Cir.  1994)  (claim  that "conduct"  fell  outside  the
            heartland),  cert.  denied, 115  S.  Ct.  919 (1995);  United
                         _____________                             ______
            States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 952-53 (1st Cir. 1993) (claim
            ______    ______
            of heavy family responsibilities).

                                         -9-
                                         -9-

                 Obviously what the district court meant  to say was that

            departures  are   most   often  based   upon   some   special

            characteristic  of  the defendant  or  the  offense and  that

            nothing unusual in  these respects was  presented here.   The
                            __________________

            court  then  addressed  the  single  feature  here  that  was

            arguably different  from the typical case,  namely, the delay

            in prosecution; and, far from ruling delay out as a potential

            departure factor, the court  then considered when delay might

            be the  basis for a  departure.  In  sum, the first  claim of

            error rests on a quotation out of context.

                 The  second claim of error is a closer question, but not

            by much.  The district court could be taken to have said that

            it  would  consider  delay  in  prosecution  as  a  basis for

            departure, assuming prejudice, only  if the delay were caused

            by  government  misconduct reflecting  bad  faith.   This  is

            certainly a permissible  reading of the court's words, if one

            juxtaposes   the  court's   statement   that  there   was  no

            "deliberate  misconduct" here  with its  subsequent statement

            that "there should  be something  to suggest  more than  mere

            delay."

                 If  the district court meant that only a bad faith delay

            could support departure downward, it  arguably overstated the

            law.  Under the  guidelines, a delay in prosecution  can have

            various  adverse effects  on  the defendant's  sentence;  for

            example,  apart from  the lost  opportunity for  a concurrent

                                         -10-
                                         -10-

            sentence, it  can drastically  affect criminal history  if in

            the meantime the defendant is convicted of other crimes.  See
                                                                      ___

            U.S.S.G.   4A1.1.  Or, a mitigating circumstance--which might

            otherwise affect sentencing--might disappear.  See U.S.S.G.  
                                                           ___

            5K2.0.

                 It  seems to  us  possible that  someone  with time  and

            ingenuity  could construct a case where a careless or even an

            innocent  delay produced  sentencing consequences  so unusual

            and unfair that a departure would be permissible.  Certainly,

            the Ninth Circuit  thought this  was so in  United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Martinez,  77  F.3d  332, 336-37  (1996).    But  it is  also
            ________

            unlikely that  the district  court really  meant to  rule out

            this  remote   possibility,  and  it  is   certain  that  the

            possibility is irrelevant to the present case.

                 After  all, what the district court  said is true almost
                                                                   ______

            all of the  time: deliberate tampering to increase a sentence

            would   be  a   concern,  but   the  ordinary   accidents  of

            acceleration or  delay are  part of  the  fabric of  criminal

            proceedings.  Indeed, several  of our decisions rejecting due

            process claims  that delay  caused sentencing  prejudice have

            emphasized that the delay was not aimed at manipulation.  See
                                                                      ___

            United  States v. McCoy, 977  F.2d 706, 711  (1st Cir. 1992);
            ______________    _____

            Acha v.  United States, 910 F.2d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1990).  And
            ____     _____________

            in the  present  case,  the  delay was  neither  extreme  nor

            implicitly sinister.

                                         -11-
                                         -11-

                 District  judges normally  deliver  their  decisions  on

            sentencing from the  bench, just after, and sometimes  in the

            course of,  the presentation  of numerous arguments  and even

            evidence  as to  the permissible  range and  proper sentence.

            These often  spontaneous remarks  are addressed primarily  to

            the case at hand and are unlikely to be a perfect or complete

            statement of all of  the surrounding law.  What  the district

            judge said  here  was entirely  adequate as  directed to  the

            present case.

                 Accordingly,  we have  no  occasion to  consider whether

            Saldana  could or  would  have received  a partly  concurrent

            sentence if the federal sentencing  had occurred while he was

            still in state  prison.   The question is  laborious even  to

            describe  in full  because it  is complicated  by changes  in

            guideline commentary  and a possible  ex post facto  claim if
                                                  _____________

            the current version  were applied to Saldana.  Resolution can

            await a case where the issue could affect the result.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -12-
                                         -12-