Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-2647
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
AMAN TAFFERE,
Defendant, Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya, and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Robert C. Andrews, on brief for defendant, appellant.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief, and Paula D. Silsby,
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
August 21, 2006
Per Curiam. Defendant Aman Taffere ("Taffere") appeals
from his within-guidelines sentence on the sole ground that the
district court erred in failing to consider the 100:1 crack/cocaine
ratio as imposing more punishment than necessary. The disposition
of this appeal is governed by this court's decisions in United
States v. Pho, 433 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2006), and United States v.
Navedo-Concepción, 450 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2006), both of which post-
dated Taffere's sentencing.
Taffere attempts to avoid Pho's holding that a sentencing
court may not categorically substitute a 20:1 crack-to-powder
cocaine ratio for the 100:1 ratio provided in the guidelines, Pho,
433 F.3d at 64, by conceding that such a categorical substitution,
which he sought below, is now precluded but arguing that the court
nevertheless should have considered the crack/powder disparity in
determining whether the resulting sentence was greater than
necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). That argument is unavailing.
Although Pho left open the possibility that "the nature
of the contraband and/or the severity of a projected guideline
sentence may . . . be taken into account on a case-by-case basis,"
id. at 65, Taffere points to no case-specific circumstances that
would require a lesser sentence here. The judge explicitly
considered the only potentially mitigating circumstances brought to
his attention by defense counsel--Taffere's difficult adjustment to
life in the United States, to which he had immigrated at a young
-2-
age from the Sudan, and his post-conviction efforts at
rehabilitation, including obtaining his GED--but nevertheless
concluded that a lesser sentence would not fulfill the criteria set
forth in section 3553(a), including deterrence and public
protection, and that a reduction based on the crack/powder cocaine
differential would create rather than avoid sentencing disparity
among different judges and districts. In imposing a sentence below
the statutory minimum (pursuant to the safety valve) and just one
month above the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, the
judge expressed his hope that the relatively light sentence would
afford Taffere the opportunity for rehabilitation. He also took
into account Taffere's strong family ties by recommending that he
be imprisoned in Pennsylvania, where his family had relatives with
whom they could stay while visiting him. Under Navedo-Concepción,
450 F.3d at 58, the "not greater than necessary" language of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) requires no further explanation of why a still
lighter sentence would be inadequate.
Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed. See 1st Cir. R.
27(c).
-3-