US v. Reid
Filing
OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Michael Boudin, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. Published. [17-2021]
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 17-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
DONALD REID,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth A. Billowitz on brief for appellant.
Benjamin M. Block, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Halsey B. Frank, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
August 10, 2018
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.
Entry ID: 6190034
Donald Reid pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin.
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C).
to
be
a
career
offender,
21
The district court found Reid
U.S.S.G.
§
4B1.1(a),
subject
to
a
guidelines sentencing range ("GSR") of 151 to 188 months, but it
sentenced him to a below-guidelines term of seventy-eight months
in prison.
On appeal, Reid challenges his sentence.
On May 27, 2016, in the course of a wiretap investigation
into a drug trafficking conspiracy in the Portland, Maine area,
law enforcement agents arrested Reid shortly after he traveled by
bus from New York to Portland with 253 grams of cocaine and twentyeight grams of heroin in his backpack.
Reid was charged, along
with others, with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin, 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, but thereafter pled guilty to possession
with intent to distribute, id. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C).
The presentence investigation report ("PSR") said that
there was "no evidence to suggest that [Reid] was engaged in any
further activities of the drug conspiracy" beyond acting as a
courier.
The PSR recommended a two-level minor participant role
reduction, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), but it advised against a fourlevel minimal participant reduction, id. § 3B1.2(a), because Reid
"must have had some knowledge and understanding of the scope of
the criminal enterprise and the activities of those involved to be
- 2 -
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 3
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
trusted to transport that significant amount of narcotics across
multiple states."
The PSR also set forth Reid's lengthy criminal history,
which included a juvenile conviction at age thirteen for thirddegree robbery; adult convictions at age seventeen for possession
of
crack
cocaine
and
first-degree
robbery;
and
subsequent
convictions for disobeying an officer and resisting arrest, sale
of a half-gram of cocaine, second-degree possession of a forged
instrument, and conspiracy to defraud the United States by altering
postal money orders.
Reid's convictions for first-degree robbery
and sale of cocaine qualified him as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
At the sentencing hearing on September 18, 2017, defense
counsel conceded that there was a "sufficient basis . . . to
substantiate" Reid's career offender designation, but sought a
reduced variant sentence.
The district court accordingly found
that Reid was a career offender, with a corresponding total offense
level of twenty-nine--after a three-level decrease for acceptance
of
responsibility,
category of VI.
U.S.S.G.
§
3E1.1--and
a
criminal
history
Reid's career offender status mooted his request
for a minimal participant reduction because the career offender
guidelines do not allow for role reductions.
"[I]n any event,"
the court found, Reid did not qualify for the minimal participant
reduction.
- 3 -
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 4
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
Reid's advisory GSR as a career offender was 151 to 188
months.
The government recommended a below-guidelines sentence
"in the neighborhood of six years" based on Reid's youth at the
time of his predicate robbery conviction and the small quantity
involved
in
his
predicate
drug
trafficking
conviction.
The
evidence, the government recognized, did not suggest that Reid had
further involvement in the conspiracy beyond the one trip. Defense
counsel,
pointing
to
Reid's
peripheral
role
in
the
instant
conspiracy, his disadvantaged upbringing, and the circumstances of
his predicate convictions, requested a sentence within the GSR
that would have applied had Reid not qualified as a career offender
(twenty-seven to thirty-three months).
The
imprisonment--a
court
sentenced
sentence
Reid
to
significantly
seventy-eight
below
Reid's
months'
GSR
as
a
career offender. The judge stressed that Reid had been "a prolific
criminal" since a young age and that, by the age of thirty-one, he
had "an amazing record of criminal activity." The judge also noted
that over the years Reid had "taken advantage of repeated leniency"
and had violated parole.
Remarking that Reid's was a "very difficult case," the
court looked for but found "not much" in terms of redeeming factors
or prospects for improvement:
The court stated that "every time
[Reid] had a chance, he . . . committed another crime."
After
considering a ten-year sentence "to protect the public from someone
- 4 -
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 5
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
who is a career criminal," the court settled for a sentence even
further below the adopted GSR.
On appeal, Reid's first claim of error is that the court
wrongly denied him a minimal participant reduction.
§ 3B1.2(a).
career
U.S.S.G.
However, Reid's offense level was dictated by the
offender
reductions:
guidelines,
which
do
not
countenance
role
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) provides that where, as here,
"the offense level for a career offender . . . is greater than the
offense level otherwise applicable, the [career offender] offense
level . . . shall apply."
Accordingly, a minimal participant
designation would not have helped Reid.
See United States v.
Morales-Diaz, 925 F.2d 535, 540 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v.
Davis, 873 F.3d 343, 346 (1st Cir. 2017).
Reid's main claim is that his sentence is unreasonable.
The
crux
of
his
argument
is
that
although
he
"technically
qualifie[s]" as a career offender, the district court should not
have treated him as such for sentencing purposes because of his
"unique circumstances."
(Reid also suggests that it is unclear
whether the district court sentenced him as a career offender, but
twice the court flatly stated that it was treating Reid as such.)
The court, Reid claims, failed to address explicitly and
take
into
account
how
his
"traumatic"
upbringing--marked
by
abandonment and abuse--made him "less morally culpable" for the
- 5 -
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 6
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
robbery conviction that served as a predicate to his career
offender status.
We assume, favorably to Reid, that his sentence is
reviewed
for
abuse
of
discretion,
see
United
States
v.
Alejandro-Rosado, 878 F.3d 435, 438-39, 440 (1st Cir. 2017), but
we find none.
Fatal to Reid's challenge is the court's thoughtful
consideration of his personal history and its imposition of a
variant sentence far below the applicable career offender GSR.
During sentencing the judge provided defense counsel
with
multiple
opportunities
to
convince
the
court
that
Reid
deserved leniency, stating "I'm looking for a spark here that
[Reid] has any concern for the criminal justice system."
And
before announcing Reid's sentence, the judge stated that he had
considered, among other things, the letters submitted by Reid's
family,
the
PSR
(which
described
in
depth
Reid's
difficult
childhood), defense counsel's arguments (which highlighted Reid's
upbringing and the circumstances of his predicate offenses), and
Reid's "history, record and personal characteristics."
Reid urges that his "troubled background" warranted
exceptional leniency.
But the court was under no obligation to
agree, see United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162, 167 (1st
Cir.
2015),
and
the
court
justifiably
found
this
undermined by Reid's recidivism over more than a decade.
argument
In all
events, the imposition of a below-guidelines sentence suggests
- 6 -
Case: 17-2021
Document: 00117325215
Page: 7
Date Filed: 08/10/2018
Entry ID: 6190034
that the court was somewhat persuaded by Reid's argument for
leniency--albeit not to the extent Reid desired.
Reid finally argues that the "application of the [career
offender] guideline . . .
ultimately resulted in a sentence that
was substantively unreasonable" and that "the punishment does not
fit the crime." But, having conceded that he qualified as a career
offender, Reid's substantive reasonableness argument is just a
reworking of his argument for a greater downward variance.
In
sum, the below-guidelines sentence of seventy-eight months is a
defensible outcome.
See United States v. Rivera-González, 776
F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2015); United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305,
310 (1st Cir. 2014).
Affirmed.
- 7 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?