United States of America v. Gulvinder Singh Sandhu

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 06-5053
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GULVINDER SINGH SANDHU,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
District Court No.: 02-cr-00247
District Court Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 6, 2008
Before: BARRY, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 13, 2008)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 7 --

This rule has since been modified. See U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Office of Pub.1
Affairs, Revised Hours-of-Service Rule to Help Ensure Truck Drivers Get Adequate Rest,
Apr. 24, 2003, http://www.dot.gov/affairs/fmcsa0403.htm.
2
Gulvinder Singh Sandhu appeals his sentence following a plea of guilty to 42
counts of making false statements. We will affirm.
I.
We write exclusively for the parties, so we recount only the facts essential to our
decision. Sandhu is a Canadian commercial truck driver who frequently makes deliveries
in the United States. Accordingly, he is subject to U.S. regulations that require him to,
inter alia, maintain a logbook that accurately reflects his driving and off-duty hours, 49
C.F.R. § 395.8 (1998), and refrain from driving more than ten consecutive hours without
at least eight hours of rest in-between (the so-called “ten hour rule”). 49 C.F.R. § 395.3
(1998); United States v. Sandhu, 462 F. Supp. 2d 663, 664-65 (E.D. Pa. 2006). On1
September 22, 1999, Sandhu was traveling on Interstate 78 in Berks County,
Pennsylvania, when he lost control of his truck and collided with a van traveling in the
opposite direction, killing four of its occupants and seriously injuring two others.
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) investigated the incident
and discovered that in the weeks preceding the crash, Sandhu had falsified his logbook
entries 42 times. Records revealed that Sandhu frequently misstated the times at which he
crossed the border, and toll receipts showed that in many cases, Sandhu was driving when
he claimed to be off-duty in the sleeper berth of his truck. Accordingly, Sandhu was

-- 2 of 7 --

Sandhu was also charged in state court with vehicular manslaughter and related2
offenses. These charges were dismissed, however, and Sandhu pleaded guilty to the
summary offense of careless driving. See Sandhu, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 663.
3
indicted on, and pleaded guilty to, 42 counts of making false statements in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001. See 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(e). Before he was sentenced, Sandhu sought to2
exclude evidence relating to the September 22 crash. The District Court denied Sandhu’s
motion, finding the evidence potentially relevant to the required sentencing inquiry.
Sandhu, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 663, 671-75.
At Sandhu’s sentencing hearing, the District Court heard from a truck driver who
witnessed the crash, the agent who investigated Sandhu’s logbook, and several of
Sandhu’s friends and family. The Court also considered Sandhu’s presentence report
(PSR), which calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 8-14 months, but noted that an
upward departure might be warranted because “death resulted.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1.
Although neither party objected to the advisory Guidelines range, the government argued
for a sentence at the top while Sandhu advocated for the bottom of the range.
The District Court declined to depart under § 5K2.1 of the Guidelines because
there was insufficient evidence that Sandhu was fatigued at the time of the crash, or that
he was violating the “ten hour rule.” Nevertheless, the District Court, after applying the
relevant factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), imposed a variance that resulted in a sentence of
48 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, a $5,000 fine, and a $4,200 special
assessment. The term of imprisonment, reasoned the Court, represents roughly “a month .

-- 3 of 7 --

4
. . for each of the violations as to which the defendant has pled guilty,” and is well below
the statutory maximum 210 month sentence to which Sandhu was exposed. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a).
Sandhu challenges his sentence on two grounds. First, he argues that the District
Court erred by imposing an upward variance without making “a specific finding of an
aggravating circumstance” or determining whether an aggravating circumstance “was
present to such a degree as to take the case out of the Guidelines’ ‘heartland.’” Second,
he argues that the Court improperly considered the § 3553(a) factors.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
Because Sandhu failed to raise his first claim in the District Court, we review it for plain
error. United States v. Couch, 291 F.3d 251, 252-53 (3d Cir. 2002). We will reverse only
if we find that: (1) the District Court committed error (2) that was plain, and (3) that
affected the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 192
(3d Cir. 2007).
At sentencing a district court must: (1) calculate the Guidelines range, (2) decide
whether a departure under the Guidelines is appropriate, and (3) decide whether to vary
from the Guidelines based on the relevant § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Gunter, 462
F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). As Sandhu correctly argues, aggravating or mitigating
circumstances remain relevant to the court’s decision whether to depart under the

-- 4 of 7 --

5
Guidelines. Id. at 247 (noting that at step two, our pre-Booker case law continues to have
advisory force). Once the court decides not to depart, however, its post-Booker discretion
to vary from the guidelines at step three is bounded by § 3553(a) and our reasonableness
review, not by findings of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Id.; United States v.
Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir. 2006).
Here, Sandhu’s first argument fails because it ignores the distinction between a
departure and a variance. See Gunter, 462 F.3d at 247 n.10. The District Court explicitly
declined to apply an upward departure because “there was not sufficient evidence that
[Sandhu] was suffering from fatigue at the time of the accident, nor was there sufficient
evidence to conclude that . . . [Sandhu] was violating the ten-hour rule.” Because the
District Court did not depart from the Guidelines, it was not required to identify
aggravating circumstances; rather it was required to give meaningful consideration to the
§ 3553(a) factors. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329; see Part III, infra.
We are aware of no case, and Sandhu cites none, that requires a district court to
identify aggravating circumstances in exercising its discretion to vary from the Guidelines
based on § 3553(a). Cf. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 595 (2007) (rejecting an
appellate rule that required “extraordinary” circumstances to justify a variance).
Accordingly, we find that the District Court committed no error, much less plain error, in
not identifying aggravating circumstances to justify its variance.
III.

-- 5 of 7 --

“The court need not discuss every argument made by a litigant if an argument is3
clearly without merit. Nor must a court discuss and make findings as to each of the
§ 3553(a) factors if the record makes clear the court took the factors into account in
sentencing.” Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329. Moreover, the court need not invoke particular
“magic words” in explaining its sentence. Id. at 332.
6
Sandhu next argues that the District Court’s failure to properly consider the
§ 3553(a) factors resulted in an unreasonable sentence. We review the District Court’s
sentence under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
Thus, we consider: (1) whether the District Court gave meaningful consideration to the
relevant § 3553(a) factors; and (2) whether the Court reasonably applied those factors to3
the circumstances of the case. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329-30.
In Sandhu’s case, we answer both questions in the affirmative. The Court
considered the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” § 3553(a)(1), observing that
“falsification of logbooks in order to circumvent DOT safety regulations is a serious
offense that carries risk far greater than those for most document falsifications,” as well
as the “history and characteristics of the defendant,” id., recognizing Sandhu’s otherwise
“unblemished life.” The Court emphasized the need for the sentence to “reflect the
seriousness of the offense,” § 3553(a)(2)(A), and to provide “adequate deterrence” to
similar conduct, § 3553(a)(2)(B), when it characterized Sandhu’s conduct as “a violation
of safety regulations with potentially fatal consequences,” and sought to send “a clear
message that safety violations are a serious offense, and if violated, will result in serious

-- 6 of 7 --

7
penalties.” The District Court also examined sentences imposed in similar situations,
§ 3553(a)(6), but found those situations distinguishable.
Any concern Sandhu had that the District Court was prejudiced by his accident, or
relied solely upon that fact in determining his sentence, is dispelled by the District Court’s
thorough § 3553(a) analysis. Moreover, the District Court explicitly stated that the
upward variance reflected Sandhu’s “repeated violations over a short period of time” of
18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 49 C.F.R. § 395.8, not his “causing or being involved in [the]
accident.” Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion and the judgment
of sentence will be affirmed.

-- 7 of 7 --