United States v. Kevin Dcosta ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 19-3260
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEVIN DCOSTA,
Appellant
______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2-18-cr-00603-001)
District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 9, 2020
Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: September 14, 2020)
_____________
OPINION*
_____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Kevin D’Costa appeals his judgment of sentence after he pleaded guilty to
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we will affirm.
D’Costa was sentenced to 77 months’ imprisonment based on an advisory
Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months. D’Costa argues his sentence was substantively
unreasonable. It was not.
We may presume a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114, 119–20 (3d Cir. 2014). We will affirm “unless no reasonable
sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on [D’Costa] for the reasons the
district court provided.” Id. at 124 (citation and quotation marks omitted). A review of
the record shows that the District Court did not abuse its broad discretion because it
reasonably considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the circumstances of
D’Costa’s case. See United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).
D’Costa claims the District Court did not give due consideration to his mitigating
factors, such as his history of mental health issues and that he carried a firearm only for
self defense. After hearing argument from both parties, the District Court explained that
D’Costa deserved a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range given his “persistent
criminal conduct, the danger to the public of gun violence, . . . and the [self-medication]
of marijuana, which [despite] having had the benefit of mental health treatment, mental
health counseling, and even medication, [D’Costa] turned to as his remedy.” App. 64. But
after considering D’Costa‘s traumatic past, family support, and his attempts to turn his
2
life around, the District Court showed some leniency and imposed a bottom-of-the-
Guidelines sentence.
The District Court considered D’Costa’s mitigating factors, including his mental
health. Although the Court might not have given his “mitigating factors the weight
[D’Costa] contends they deserve,” that does not render the sentence unreasonable. United
States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 2007). A reasonable jurist could have given
D’Costa the same sentence as the District Court for the reasons it provided. So D’Costa
has not carried his “heavy burden of showing that a sentence within the applicable
Guidelines range was substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Fountain, 792 F.3d
310, 323 (3d Cir. 2015).
We will affirm D’Costa’s judgment of sentence.
3