11-2154(L)

63 Pages·2012·0.26 MB·Indonesian

11-2154(L)
To Be Argued By:
ROBERT M. SPECTOR
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Docket No. 11-2154(L)
_____
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
-vs-
RONNIE WASHINGTON, aka Gotti,
LARRY DEVORE, aka L.D.,
Defendants-Appellants,
(For continuation of Caption, See Inside Cover)
_____
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DAVID B. FEIN
United States Attorney
District of Connecticut

ROBERT M. SPECTOR
SANDRA S. GLOVER (of counsel)
Assistant United States Attorneys
JOSEPH JACKSON, aka M.I., aka Mighty,
JAYQUIS BROCK, aka Pook, aka Pooka, MARK
BASKERVILLE, aka Munson, RUSSELL
BATTLES, aka Cuddy Russ, Cuddy,
STEPHANIE D’AGOSTINO, SHERROD
DANIELS, aka Hot Sauce, HARRY DIAZ, aka
Hottie, aka H., JAMES DICKERSON, STEVEN
DICKS, aka God, DERRON DOCKERY, aka Day
Day, MANOKUS FIELDS, aka Fresh,
DEVANTE FORTUNE, aka Pooty, aka Will, aka
Devante Fortuna, MAURICE HILL, aka Mo
Digs, SHAMAINE HOBBY, EDMUND
JACKSON, SR, aka Eddie, JAMES JENKINS,
aka Black, TORRENCE JONES, DEMETRIUS
LITTLE, aka Hap, aka Happy, KRISTIN
LONGOBARDI, ERIC LUMPKIIN, WENDEL
McDUFFIE, aka Win, RYAN MOORE, JAVON
MOORNING, aka Lil Red, GEMINI NAPO-
LEON, aka Poe, aka I.G., aka Gemi, CHARLES
NICHOLS, RAYMOND RICE, CHANEL
SINCLAIR, ROGER SULLIVAN, aka Manny O,
ELEAZAR THOMPSON, aka L., TYLAN
THOMPSON, AKA Finner, BRANDON
TOLSON, aka Black, ALVIN TOWNSEND, aka
Gurb, TYRONE WILIAMS, DARREN
WINFREY, aka D., MILTON JOHNSON, AKA
Tilt,
Defendants.
Table of Contents

Table of Authorities .......................................... iii
Statement of Jurisdiction ................................ vii
Statement of Issue Presented for Review ...... viii
Preliminary Statement .......................................1
Statement of the Case ........................................4
Statement of Facts ..............................................5
A. The offense conduct ......................................5
B. The guilty plea ...............................................7
C. The sentencing hearing ................................9
Summary of Argument .................................... 25
Argument.......................................................... 26
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing the defendant to 240 months’
incarceration ................................................. 26
A. Relevant facts ........................................ 26
B. Governing law and standard of
review ..................................................... 27
1. Reviewing a sentence for
reasonableness .................................. 27
2. Career offender designation ............. 30
3. Plain error review ............................. 33
C. Discussion ............................................... 35
1. The defendant was properly
designated as a career offender ........ 36

2. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a 240-month
sentence ............................................. 40

Conclusion ........................................................ 46
Certification per Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)
Addendum

ii
Table of Authorities
PURSUANT TO “BLUE BOOK” RULE 10.7, THE GOVERNMENT’S
CITATION OF CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE “CERTIORARI DENIED”
DISPOSITIONS THAT ARE MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
Cases
Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 586 (2007) .................................. 27, 28
Johnson v. United States,
520 U.S. 461 (1997) ........................................ 34
North Carolina v. Alford,
400 U.S. 25 (1970) .............................. 11, 14, 37
Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129 (2009) ........................................ 34
Shepard v. United States,
544 U.S. 13 (2005) .......................................... 33
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005) ........................................ 27
United States v. Boonphakdee,
40 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 1994), abrogated on other
grounds, United States v. Gonzalez,
420 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................ 39
iii
United States v. Cavera,
550 F.3d 180 (2008) (en banc) ............ 27, 28, 29
United States v. Cotton,
535 U.S. 625 (2002) ........................................ 34
United States v. Cuello,
357 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................ 39
United States v. Deandrade,
600 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................ 34
United States v. Fernandez,
443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006). ............................. 29
United States v. Jackson,
504 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................ 38
United States v. Jones,
415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................ 38
United States v. Marcus,
130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) .............................. 34, 41
United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725 (1993) ........................................ 34
United States v. Plitman,
194 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 1999) .............................. 35
iv
United States v. Rigas,
490 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................ 28
United States v. Rivers,
50 F.3d 1126 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................ 39
United States v. Savage,
542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) .... 15, 31, 32, 33, 37
United States v. Wagner-Dano,
--- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 1660956
(2d Cir. May 14, 2012) .............................. 41, 44
United States v. Walsh,
194 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1999) .............................. 34
United States v. Woltmann,
610 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 2010) .............................. 41
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 3231 ................................................. vii
18 U.S.C. § 3553 ..................................... 15, 27, 36
18 U.S.C. § 3742 ................................................. vii
21 U.S.C. § 841 ........................................... 4, 8, 38
21 U.S.C. § 843 ..................................................... 4
21 U.S.C. § 846 ..................................................... 4
v
21 U.S.C. § 851 ................................................. 2, 7
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ................................................. vii
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-240 ................................ 32
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-277 .......................... 31, 32
Rules
Fed. R. App. P. 4 ................................................ vii
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 ................................. 25, 35, 41
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 ............................................. 33
Guidelines
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 ................................................. 44
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 ............................................ 8, 15
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 ................................................ 39
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 ............................................. 4, 44
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 ................................. 4, 31, 39, 40
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 .......................................... passim
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 ......................... 30, 31, 32, 37, 39

vi
Statement of Jurisdiction
The district court (Ellen Bree Burns, J.) had
subject matter jurisdiction over this federal
criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
Judgment entered on May 20, 2011. Appendix
(“A”)121-A122. On May 25, 2011, the defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b). A124. This Court has appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a).

vii
Statement of the Issue
Presented for Review1
Whether the district court abused its discre-
tion and imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence in determining that a twenty-year term
of prison, which was slightly lower than the ca-
reer offender guideline range, was sufficient but
not greater than necessary to reflect the purpos-
es of a criminal sanction.

1 The appeal involving co-defendant Larry Devore
(11-3758) was consolidated with this appeal. On
May 29, 2012, the government filed a motion to dis-
miss the Devore appeal based on the appeal waiver
contained in his written plea agreement.
viii