United States v. Long , 183 F. App'x 182 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2006
USA v. Long
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2357
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Long" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 935.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/935
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2357
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KARIN L. LONG,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00025-1
District Judge: The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 28, 2006
______
Before: McKEE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK,* District Judge.
______
(Opinion filed: June 8, 2006)
*
Honorable Louis H. Pollak, District Judge for the United States District Court of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
________
OPINION
________
POLLAK, District Judge:
Defendant-appellant Karin A. Long appeals the sentence entered on April 21,
2005, committing her to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment. Because we write
primarily for the parties, who are familiar with this case, we need not set forth the full
factual or procedural history of this appeal.
In August 2004, Ms. Long executed a plea agreement and entered a plea of guilty
to two counts of tax fraud. See Judgment, App. at 2 (indicating Ms. Long admitted
violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 371). Given Ms. Long’s offense level
of 15 and criminal history category of 1, the United States Sentencing Guidelines
recommended a term of eighteen to twenty-four months. Ms. Long thus received the
minimum sentence recommended by the Guidelines.
Ms. Long now argues that the District Court judge did not make clear that he was
aware of the advisory nature of the Guidelines or that he understood that he was free to
depart from the Guidelines based on a defendant’s unique circumstances. This court has
jurisdiction to consider whether the District Court failed to recognize its authority to
depart from the Guidelines. See United States v. Sally, 116 F.3d 76, 78-79 (3d Cir. 1997).
Contrary to Ms. Long’s contentions, the record does not suggest that the District Court
held the erroneous belief that it lacked such discretion. Rather, the transcript of the
2
sentencing proceeding shows that the sentencing judge was aware of his discretionary
powers. Nonetheless, he concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines’ range
was most appropriate. See, e.g., Sentencing Hearing Transcript (“Transcript”), App. at
21-22 (considering the evidence submitted on Ms. Long’s behalf but deciding to require a
sentence within the Guidelines’ range); see also id. at 12 (acknowledging defense
counsel’s observation that the Guidelines are now advisory).
Ms. Long further asserts that the failure of the District Court to depart from the
Guidelines in the instant case was an abuse of discretion, in light of the information which
was before the District Court. We review the sentence for reasonableness. See United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In the instant case, the District Court
acknowledged Ms. Long’s role as primary caretaker for her ill and disabled domestic
partner. See, e.g., Transcript, App. at 15, 22. However, the District Court did not find
that the circumstances were so exceptional as to merit a sentence below the Guidelines’
range. See id. at 22; cf. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 (“[F]amily ties and responsibilities are not
ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted.”).1 We find
that the court contemplated the totality of the circumstances, and the resulting sentence
was reasonable. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We will therefore affirm.
1
Ms. Long observes that in exceptional circumstances, where a defendant plays an
irreplaceable role in the life of a family member, a sentence below the Guidelines range
may be deemed appropriate. Appellant’s Brief at 6 (citing United States v. Gaskill, 991
F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1993)). She concedes that generally “using the factor of family
circumstances is discouraged as a vehicle for downward departure.” Id. at 5.
3