United States v. Howard , 269 F. App'x 206 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-17-2008
USA v. Howard
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4523
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Howard" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1438.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1438
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-4523
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DAVID HOWARD,
Appellant
On Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Criminal No.06-cr-00065)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 5, 2008
Before: MCKEE, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,* Senior District Judge.
(Filed March 17, 2008)
________________________
* Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Judge for the District
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION
IRENAS, Senior United States District Judge.
Appellant, David Howard, pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He
was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment, the lowest end of the Sentencing Guideline
range of 37 to 46 months.1 Howard contends that the sentence imposed was unreasonable
because it violated the statutory mandate that the sentence be sufficient but not greater
than necessary (the “parsimony provision”), did not adequately reflect the history and
characteristics of the defendant, and relied too heavily on the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)&(6).2 He does not challenge the calculation
of the Guideline range, nor does he challenge the District Court’s rejection of his request
for a downward departure under the Guidelines.
I.
We review the District Court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. See
1
Howard’s base offense level of 20 was reduced by 3 for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a)&(b), yielding a final offense level of 17. (App. 9,
72, 92-4). His criminal history category was IV. (Id). We have jurisdiction to review
Howard’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sets forth the “[f]actors to be considered in imposing a
sentence”. Subsections (1) and (6) require the court to consider: “the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” and “the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records
who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”
2
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007). This review is limited to
determining whether the sentence imposed was “reasonable.” Id. at 594; United States v.
Booker,543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 764-67 (2005), United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d
324, 327 (3d Cir. 2006). We consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors to decide “whether
the district judge imposed the sentence he or she did for reasons that are logical and
consistent with the [these] factors[.]” Cooper, 437 F.3d at 330 (quoting United States v.
Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 481 (7th Cir. 2005)). A within-Guidelines sentence may be (but
is not necessarily) presumed reasonable by this Court. See Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597. Appellant bears the burden of proving
the unreasonableness of a sentence. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 332.
II.
Howard contends that his significant rehabilitation efforts during his seven month
period of home detention pending sentencing render the District Court’s imposition of a
37 month sentence unreasonable. Despite a lifelong dependency on alcohol, he became
completely drug and alcohol free over this time, and was able to hold a steady job.
The District Court, however, considered his rehabilitation efforts. After properly
calculating the Guideline range, it expressed agreement with the government that the
offense was serious, given that Howard was intoxicated and carrying a gun. (App. 92-
93). It also agreed with defense counsel that Howard had taken “positive steps” since the
inception of the prosecution and home detention. (Id.). The District Court noted that it
3
was “particularly impressed” with a letter from Howard’s co-worker attesting to the
quality of his work and by his increasing level of maturity. (App. 66, 93).
Ultimately, however, the Court concluded that Howard’s rehabilitation efforts
were “significant” but not “unusual,” and that a sentence at the bottom end of the
Guideline range was in accordance with the parsimony provision, and avoided
unwarranted sentencing disparities. (App. 93-94). The reasons given by the District
Court in imposing a 37 month sentence are logical and consistent with the relevant §
3553(a) factors. Howard has not met his burden of demonstrating that the sentence
imposed was unreasonable.
III.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will be affirmed.
4