United States v. Sanders , 185 F. App'x 176 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-20-2006
USA v. Sanders
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1879
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Sanders" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 874.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/874
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 05-1879
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DIJUAN SANDERS,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 04-cr-00314-1)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 16, 2006
Before: FISHER, CHAGARES and REAVLEY,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 20, 2006)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
*
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
On March 2, 2005, DiJuan Sanders was sentenced by the District Court to 183
months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges stemming from his 2003 armed
robbery of a U-Haul store in Philadelphia. He has filed an appeal asking that we vacate
his sentence and remand for re-sentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005).
Sanders does not explain the basis of his request for remand. Under United States
v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005), we routinely remand cases in which defendants
were sentenced prior to the issuance of Booker, but the sentencing hearing in this case
took place nearly two months after January 12, 2005, the date Booker was issued. We
presume, therefore, that Sanders is assigning some error in the sentence rather than
seeking relief under Davis. His argument, in its entirety, is: “It seems that the sentencing
court was constrained to apply the Guidelines.” That sentence is followed by a quotation
from the sentencing hearing in which the District Court recites the Guidelines range.
Given that Booker requires district courts to calculate and consider the Guidelines range,
Booker, 543 U.S. at 264, the fact that the District Court did so here is not a basis for
remand. Nor does our examination of the record reveal any error.
In United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (2006), we held that district courts must
give meaningful consideration to the enumerated § 3553(a) factors, of which the
Guidelines range is but one. Id. at 329. District courts need not recite the factors from
the bench, so long as the record, viewed as a whole, makes this consideration clear. Id.
2
Considering the factors means reasonably applying them to the circumstances of the
offense. Id.
In this case, the District Court held a thorough sentencing hearing in which the
§ 3553 factors were sufficiently considered. The District Court considered the details of
the robbery, Sanders’ role in the robbery, the particular seriousness of armed robbery, and
Sanders’ substantial record of prior offenses. The District Court also heard testimony
from Sanders’ fiancée and from two victims of the robbery.
Finally, defense counsel specifically referred to Booker during the hearing, and
there is no indication that the District Court was unaware of its discretion under Booker.
The bulk of Sanders’ sentence, 120 months for the firearms charge, is a statutory
minimum unaffected by Booker, and the remaining 63 months is within the Guidelines
range and is not unreasonable under Cooper.
In sum, Sanders was sentenced under Booker, and while he does not allege that the
sentence is unreasonable or that the District Court failed adequately to consider any of the
factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, our review of the transcript confirms that the
District Court was aware of its discretion under Booker, that it adequately considered the
§ 3553 factors, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. Accordingly, we will
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3