NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 10-2432
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REINALDO TORRES, JR.,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 08-cr-00742-008)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 23, 2011
Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 27, 2011)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Reinaldo Torres, Jr. appeals his judgment of sentence following guilty pleas to six
federal crimes. Torres argues that his sentence was unreasonable because he would have
been subject to a lower sentencing range under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and
because his designation as a career offender overrepresented his criminal past. Because
the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, we will affirm.
I
We write for the parties, who are well acquainted with the case, so we review only
briefly the essential facts and procedural history.
Torres was arrested on March 6, 2009, after a prolonged investigation of the Latin
Kings street gang by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Allentown,
Pennsylvania, Police Department. Over the course of the investigation, Torres
participated in three sales of crack cocaine to confidential informants, and a search of his
residence uncovered 8.8 grams of crack cocaine, 1.4 grams of marijuana, and certain drug
paraphernalia. On January 5, 2010, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
distribution of 50 grams or more of cocaine base (Counts 1 and 2), distribution of five
grams or more of cocaine base (Count 3), distribution of cocaine base (Count 4),
possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (Count 5), and
possession with intent to deliver marijuana (Count 6), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846
and 841(a) and (b)(1)(A)-(D). Counts 1 and 2 each carried a maximum term of life
imprisonment, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A).
Before sentencing, the Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation
Report (PSR) and calculated Torres’s sentencing range under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The PSR classified Torres as a career offender under
USSG § 4B1.1 based on his prior convictions for aggravated and simple assault,
2
automatically yielding a criminal history category of VI and, because the applicable
statutory maximum sentence was life imprisonment, an offense level of 37. Had the
career offender provision not applied, Torres’s criminal history still would have placed
him in criminal history category VI. After factoring in his acceptance of responsibility,
Torres’s offense level was 34, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327
months imprisonment. Torres neither objected to the PSR’s calculation of his Guidelines
range nor moved for a downward departure.
Torres did urge the Court to vary downward based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Under § 3553(a)(2)—which outlines the statutory objectives to be considered at
sentencing—Torres argued the District Court should consider the disparity between
sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses, as well as the then-pending Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, which would lessen that disparity. See Fair Sentencing Act of
2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) (FSA). Torres also argued that,
although he was properly classified as a career offender, the Court should consider his
relative youth when he committed the two predicate assaults.
In consideration of Torres’s arguments, the District Court varied downward from
the Guidelines range based upon, inter alia, the crack/powder disparity and Torres’s
youth when he committed the predicate offenses. At the same time, the District Court
declined to vary based on the pendency of the FSA and imposed a sentence of 204
months incarceration and five years supervised release. Torres timely appealed.
3
II
We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion, looking first for
procedural error and then examining the sentence for substantive reasonableness. United
States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 217-18 (3d Cir. 2008). We review a district court’s legal
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d
Cir. 2007) (en banc). In evaluating the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we must
affirm “unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on
that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” United States v.
Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 went into effect on August 3, 2010, after Torres
was sentenced. We have held that the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants
like Torres whose offenses and sentences occurred before the FSA’s effective date.
United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110, 114-15 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, it was not an
abuse of discretion for the District Court to decline to apply the FSA before it was
enacted.
Torres suggests the District Court should have recalculated his Guidelines range to
account for the crack/powder disparity and then departed or varied from that lower range.
But the Court did not err by correctly calculating the Guidelines range before applying
any departures or variances; indeed it was required to do so. United States v. Gunter, 462
F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006).
4
Nor was it an abuse of discretion for the District Court to vary downward 58
months, and no further, from the bottom of the Guidelines range. Considering both the
crack/powder disparity and Torres’s youth when he committed the predicate offenses, as
did the District Court—and considering that Torres’s criminal history category and
Guidelines range would have been the same had he not been deemed a career offender—
the District Court’s sentence was substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
5