WPC p[۔2h8 #"H@3 JsR:o\ɨM](cXS~uT0;0UΒ|Pȶ]WA\0 fIU6,b$hVv-r=Dn:KT;6Gxy! oON8shfU]$"N#j\Kpԁu)<-p3>Ί8˰ijc/,}FuylB6L7\A">4(%9 vh^_~bKzAj @ڪnԟY|h{ʼ79TcIv~tJj'K!%&=fFW9;^9:i` h䘢2,Y+ <8atZ5bDYmNgxy!ӎ5KE“=i>`lnyTB<+#Z % 0D! 0GeU: 0U 8nTNW UNY UF ^ w 4   E" f$ a& m: NQ 1S 72 1u 72 0c UB b^ f jMiiiiiii BHP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  (^$X/XXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2Ȉ$ ^!XXXX    =3Xdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular0s Nx0C/backup3|xTABLE AU(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  Ȉ$XXXX  =2Xdd=    1    _ԀThisconclusionrestedinpartonthefollowingprovision  in1B1.3(a):  8  Unlessotherwisespecified...crossreferencesin 2 ChapterTwo...shallbedeterminedonthebasisofthe X following:.   8  (1)(A) ...     (83! !"3"  8  32(  B  )3  0`     inthecaseofajointlyundertakencriminal   activity(acriminalplan,scheme,endeavor,or `  enterpriseundertakenbythedefendantinconcert 6   withothers,whetherornotchargedasa  \  conspiracy),allreasonablyforeseeableactsand  2  omissionsofothersinfurtheranceofthejointly   undertakencriminalactivity,3'݌ ` `  Ќ  8  thatoccurredduringthecommissionoftheoffenseof d  conviction....:    U.S.S.G.1B1.3(a)(1).Hurleydoesnotdisputethathewas 6 properlyheldaccountableformoneylaunderingunderthis   provision.  Ȉ$XXXX  =2Xdd=    2    _ԀAsanotherexample,theamendment'scommentarycitedUnited  Statesv.Smith,186F.3d290,296300(3dCir.1999).There,  althoughdefendantshadbeenconvictedofmoneylaundering,the \ courtdeemedthefraudguideline"mostapplicable"becausethe 2 criminalconduct,lackinganyconnectiontodrugtraffickingor X seriouscrime,felloutsidethe"heartland"ofmoneylaundering . activity. ` Ȉ$XXXX  =2Xdd=    3    _ԀOnaseparatematter,thegovernmentsuggeststhat,in  determiningtheamendedguidelinerangeforpurposesof  3582(c)(2),oneshouldapplythecurrentguidelinesintheir \ entirety!includinganintervening,nonretroactiveamendmentthat 2 increasedthemoneylaunderingpenalties.Suchanapproachwould X comportwiththeversionof1B1.10thatwasineffectin1992, . butnotwiththeversionthattookeffectin1994.Thisissueneed   notbeaddressed,astheoutcomewouldbethesameineitherevent. C Ȉ$XXXX  =2Xdd=    4    _ԀTothesamegeneraleffectareUnitedStatesv.Poirier,  321F.3d1024,103335&n.8(11thCir.),cert.denied,124S.Ct.  227(2003),andUnitedStatesv.Kurtz,237F.3d154,15556(2d \ Cir.2001)(percuriam),althoughitisuncleartowhatextent 2 relevantconductwasthereusedforpurposesofapplyingthecross X reference.UnitedStatesv.Alfaro,336F.3d876,88182_(9th_ԀCir. . 2003),onwhichHurleyrelies,isinapposite. d  ^!XXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X+XXX X X+     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals G   FortheFirstCircuit  [ G XX [  A') ` dE< ` A   XXX XNo.032355 K  @#UNITEDSTATES,  G  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @!VINCENTP.HURLEY, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 @l l FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND 4 @ [Hon.ErnestC.Torres,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @'Before !q   @@((_Boudin_,ChiefJudge,  _Lipez_ԀandHoward,CircuitJudges.   A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       VincentP.Hurleyonbriefprose.  "Z%   CraigN.Moore,ActingUnitedStatesAttorney,Donald "0& _Lockhart_,AssistantU.S.Attorney,andJamesH._Leavey_,Assistant #' U.S.Attorney,onbriefforappellee. $( *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @38175@SJuly8,2004 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @38175 @ R(r'"0  (  * !     `     h      p  |-(4? _  82XXdd8 P YX ` PerCuriam .VictorHurley,sentencedin1993toa  lengthyprisonterm,appealsfromadistrictcourtorderdenying x hismotionforreductionofsentenceunder18U.S.C.3582(c)(2). $t Hearguesthathisoriginalsentencingrangehasbeenloweredbya   retroactive,2000amendmenttothesentencingguidelines. |  Specifically,hecontendsthatAmendment591barstheuseof ( x  relevant,unchargedconductforthepurposeofapplyingacross $  referencethatappearsintheoffenseguidelineapplicabletohis   offenses.Asthisargumentprovesmistaken,weaffirm. ,|   ` Hurleywasconvictedonthreecounts:RICOconspiracy,18 ( U.S.C.1962(d);interstatetravelinaidofracketeering(ITAR),  18U.S.C.1952(a);andastructuringviolation,31U.S.C. 0 5324(3).ThepredicateactschargedintheRICOconspiracycount , consistednotonlyoftheITARandstructuringviolationsbutalso  ofmoneylaundering!anoffenseofwhichHurleywasnotconvicted. 4 Hewassentencedto216monthsinprison.Ondirectappeal,this 0 courtaffirmedhisconvictionsandhissentence.UnitedStatesv.   Hurley,63F.3d1(1stCir.1995). 8!"  ` ThetrialcourtcalculatedHurley'ssentenceunderthe "4$ 1992guidelinesasfollows.Applyingthestatutoryindexin $& AppendixAalongwith2X1.1,itfirstdeterminedthatthe <&!( applicableoffenseguidelinefortheRICOconvictionwas2E1.1. '8#* Thisprovision,entitled"UnlawfulConductRelatingtoRacketeer )$, InfluencedandCorruptOrganizations,"prescribedabaseoffense @+&. level(BOL)ofeither19or"theoffenselevelapplicabletothe  underlyingracketeeringactivity,"whicheverwasgreater.The \ courtthenconcludedthatthemostserious"underlyingracketeering X activity"wasmoneylaunderingunder2S1.1.Thatprovision,   aftervariousadjustments,yieldedanoffenselevelof36.The `  groupingofallcountsproducedatotaloffenselevel(TOL)alsoof  \  36.    ` Hurleyobjectedtothisapproachpriortosentencing, d  arguingthatmoneylaunderingcouldnotbeusedasthe"underlying `  racketeeringactivity"becausehe(incontrasttosomeofhis   codefendants)hadnotbeenconvictedofthatoffense.Inhisview, h theappropriatecrossreferenceinsteadwouldhavebeentohis d structuringoffense,whichwouldhaveyieldedalowerTOL.The  districtcourtrejectedthisassertion.Andonappeal,westated: l "UndertheRICOsentencingguidelines,thedistrictjudgeproperly h employedthemoneylaunderingguidelineinsentencingappellantson  theRICOconspiracycount."Hurley,63F.3dat19(citing p  2E1.1). !l"  ` Thisconclusionthatthecrossreferencein2E1.1 "$ couldproperlyencompassrelevantconductforwhichadefendanthad t$& notbeenconvictedwasconsistentwithUnitedStatesv.Carrozza,  &p!( 4F.3d70,7483(1stCir.1993).Onsimilarfacts,wethereheld '#* that x)$, 8 ` theterm"underlyingracketeeringactivity"in $+t&. 2E1.1(a)(2)meanssimplyanyact,whetheror +J'/ notchargedagainstdefendantpersonally,that  qualifiesasaRICOpredicateactunder18  U.S.C.1961(1)andisotherwiserelevant \ conductunder1B1.3.2` x` x Id.at77(footnoteomitted). #  1      ׀Solongasthestandardsfor . relevantconductweresatisfied!i.e.,that"theactsof   coconspiratorswereinfurtheranceofthejointlyundertaken 6   activityandwerereasonablyforeseeabletothedefendant,"id.at  2  83!therewas"nojustificationforlimitingunderlying   racketeeringactivity'justtopredicateactsspecificallycharged :  againstonedefendant,"id.at77(footnoteomitted);accord,e.g., 6 UnitedStatesv.Marino,277F.3d11,37(1stCir.),cert.denied,  536U.S.948(2002). >  ` HurleynowcontendsthatAmendment591prohibitsthis : practice.Thatamendment,whichtookeffectinNovember2000and  appliesretroactively,see1B1.10(c),modified1B1.1(a),  1B1.2(a),andthestatutoryindex'sintroductorycommentary"to \ clarifytheinterrelationshipamongtheseprovisions."Amend.591 X ("reasonforamendment").Priortotheamendment,1B1.2(a)had   calledforselectingtheoffenseguideline"mostapplicable"tothe `  offenseofconviction;applicationnotethreeto1B1.2had  \  allowedconsiderationofrelevantconduct"evenwhensuchconduct   doesnotconstituteanelementoftheoffense";andtheindex's d  introductionhadstatedthat"[i]f,inanatypicalcase,the `  guidelinesectionindicatedforthestatuteofconvictionis   inappropriatebecauseoftheparticularconductinvolved,usethe h guidelinesectionmostapplicabletothenatureoftheoffense d conductchargedinthecountofwhichthedefendantwasconvicted."   ` Theseprovisionsspawnedsomeconfusion.Relying l thereon,somecourtsusedadefendant'srelevantconducttoselect h anoffenseguidelineotherthanthatreferencedinthestatutory  index.Theissuearosemostfrequentlyunder2D1.2,which p  providesenhancedpenaltiesfordrugoffensesoccurringnear !l" protectedareasorinvolvingunderageorpregnantindividuals. "$ Thosefactorsareactualelementsofseparateoffensessetforthin t$& 21U.S.C.85961.Yetsomecourtsconcludedthat2D1.2also  &p!( appliedtoconvictionsunderthemoregeneral21U.S.C.841where '#*  thedefendant'srelevantconductinvolvedoneofthelisted x)$, factors.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Clay,117F.3d317,31820  (6thCir.1997). #  2       \   ` Rejectingthisview,Amendment591deletedand/orrevised X thethreeprovisionsdescribedabove.Itscommentaryexplained:   8 ` Theclarificationisintendedtoemphasize `  thatthesentencingcourtmustapplythe 6   offenseguidelinereferencedintheStatutory  \  Indexforthestatuteofconvictionunlessthe  2  casefallswithin[alimitedexceptionnot   hererelevant].Therefore,inorderforthe   enhancedpenaltiesin2D1.2toapply,the d  defendantmustbeconvictedofanoffense :  referencedin2D1.2,ratherthansimplyhave `  engagedinconductdescribedbythat 6 guideline. ` x` x Amend.591("reasonforamendment").Withrespecttothedeletion h ofnotethreeto1B1.2,thecommentaryadded: d 8 ` Thisapplicationnotedescribesa  considerationthatismoreappropriatewhen  applying1B1.3(RelevantConduct),andits l currentplacementin1B1.2apparentlyhas B causedconfusioninapplyingthatguideline's h principlestodeterminetheoffenseconduct > guidelineinChapterTwomostappropriatefor  theoffenseofconviction.` x` x Id. F !  ` Hurleyderivesnobenefitfromthisamendment.The !B# sentencingcourtdidnotusetherelevantconductattributedtohim #% (moneylaundering)inordertodeviatefromthestatutoryindexand  selecta"moreapplicable"offenseguideline;theindex,bothin \ 1992andtoday,identifies2E1.1astheapplicableguidelinefor X RICOoffenses.Rather,hisrelevantconductwasusedatthenext   stageinthesentencingcalculationtoidentifythepertinent `  "underlyingracketeeringactivity"pursuantto2E1.1'scross  \  reference.FarfrombeingbarredbyAmendment591,thisprocess   was(andis)mandatedby1B1.3(a)(1)andbythiscourt'sCarrozza d  decision.Moreover,itwas(andis)consistentwithother `  provisionsunaffectedbyAmendment591.See1B1.1(b),1B1.2(b)   &comment.(n.2).Andasthegovernmentproperlynotes,acceptance h ofHurley'spositionwouldlargelynullifythenumerouscross d referencesappearinginChapterTwoaresultthattheCommission  clearlydidnotcontemplateinpromulgatingtheamendment. #  3      ׀ l  ` Thepertinentcaselawisinaccord.Inthewakeof h Amendment591,courtshavecontinuedtouserelevantconductinthe  courseofapplyingcrossreferencesthatappearinoffense p  guidelinesdesignatedbythestatutoryindex.See,e.g.,United !l" Statesv.Garcia,204F.Supp.2d790,795(D.N.J.2002)(applying "$ crossreferenceinmurderforhireguidelineandsentencingunder  firstdegreemurderguideline),aff'd,2003WL21297171(3dCir.) \ (unpub.),cert.denied,124S.Ct.418(2003);UnitedStatesv. X Levine,188F.Supp.2d1089,109294(N.D.Ind.2002)(same);   UnitedStatesv.Lanier,173F.Supp.2d779,784(W.D.Tenn.2001) `  (applyingcrossreferenceincivilrightsguidelineandsentencing  \  undersexualabuseguideline),aff'd,2002WL1832337(6thCir.   2002)(unpub.);cf.UnitedStatesv.Rivera,293F.3d584,586(2d d  Cir.2002)("Amendment591appliesonlytothechoiceofthe `  applicableoffenseguideline,nottothesubsequentselectionof   thebaseoffenselevel.").  #  4       h  ` Forthesereasons,thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseits d discretionindenyingHurley'smotionforreductionofsentence.  See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.LaBonte,70F.3d1396,1411(1stCir. l 1995)(explainingthattrialcourt's3582(c)(2)rulingwillbe h disturbed"onlyiftherecordrevealsapalpableabuseof...  discretion"),rev'donothergrounds,520U.S.751(1997). p  # XXXXI# ` XXX XAffirmed.# XXXXG>#