United States v. Rene , 180 F. App'x 339 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5-10-2006
    USA v. Rene
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-1287
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Rene" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1134.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1134
    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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-1287
    ___________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    v.
    JIMMY E. RENE,
    Appellant.
    ________________________
    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    District Court Judge: The Honorable James K. Gardner
    (Criminal No. 04-00459)
    ___________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    April 28, 2006
    BEFORE: AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,* District Judge.
    (Filed: May 10, 2006 )
    _______________________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    _______________________
    *
    Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the United States District
    Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
    FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
    Following a jury trial, Appellant Jimmy Rene was convicted of one count of being
    a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Rene was sentenced
    to 57 months in prison on January 27, 2005, shortly after the Supreme Court issued its
    opinion in United States v. Booker, which held that the federal sentencing guidelines are
    advisory. 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 259-60 (2005). Rene now argues that his sentence was
    unreasonable because the District Court focused excessively on the applicable sentencing
    guidelines range and on deterrence interests in determining an appropriate sentence, and
    did not give enough consideration to other relevant factors. We hold that the District
    Court’s sentence was reasonable, and we therefore affirm.1
    I. DISCUSSION
    In imposing a reasonable sentence, a District Court must exercise its discretion by
    giving meaningful consideration to all relevant factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
    United States v. Cooper, 
    437 F.3d 324
    , 329 (3d Cir. 2006). In this case, the relevant
    1
    The District Court had jurisdiction over this federal criminal case pursuant to 18
    U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction to review Rene’s sentence for reasonableness
    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). See United States v. Cooper, 
    437 F.3d 324
    , 327 (3d
    Cir. 2006). The government argues in its brief that this Court does not have jurisdiction to
    consider the reasonableness of Rene’s sentence because the sentence was within the
    correctly calculated sentencing guideline range. We rejected that claim in 
    Cooper, 437 F.3d at 327-28
    , which was decided after the government’s submission of its brief in this
    case.
    2
    factors are:
    (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
    characteristics of the defendant;
    (2) the need for the sentence imposed-
    (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
    the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
    (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
    (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
    (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
    training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
    effective manner;
    (3) the kinds of sentences available;
    (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for . . . the
    applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of
    defendant as set forth in the guidelines . . . .
    18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see 
    Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329
    . In making a sentencing determination,
    a court need not discuss and make findings as to each relevant factor, but the record must
    make clear that the court took each factor into account. 
    Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329
    . A rote
    listing by the court of the § 3553(a) factors is not sufficient if either party properly raises
    a claim with “recognized legal merit and factual support in the record” and the court fails
    to address it. 
    Id. at 329,
    332. Where the court imposes a sentence within the applicable
    sentencing guidelines range, that sentence is not considered reasonable per se, but such a
    sentence is more likely to be reasonable than a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines
    range. 
    Id. at 331.
    Here, Rene has not met his burden of showing that the District Court’s sentence
    was unreasonable. After calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines range as 51 to
    63 months and imposing a 57 month sentence, the District Court made the following
    3
    statement:
    The defendant is a 24 year-old man who, over a brief period of time,
    has accumulated a substantial criminal record. Since the age of 16, he has
    been arrested and convicted seven times. However, four of the defendant’s
    six prior convictions have not been considered in computing the defendant’s
    criminal history category because of time period constraints.
    This offense represents the third offense in which the defendant was
    in possession of a weapon[,] which reflects the increased danger of violence
    when offenders possess weapons. He has been basically on his own since
    the age of 14 and has resisted any type of authority or responsibility. At the
    time of this offense, the defendant was on state parole supervision for
    previous narcotics trafficking offenses.
    I considered several factors in imposing a 57-month period of
    incarceration, including the nature and the circumstances of the offense and
    the history and characteristics of the defendant, a sentence to reflect the
    seriousness of the offense[,] to promote respect for the law and to provide
    just punishment for the offense. I considered the deterrence of future
    criminal conduct by this defendant and by others, and I considered the need
    to protect the public from further crimes of this defendant.
    I also considered the educational and vocational training needs of
    this defendant in imposing a sentence with a recommendation to the Bureau
    of Prisons that he be incarcerated in a federal correctional institution where
    he would be able to get such vocational and educational training, not only
    because he requested it, but because I consider the defendant a person who
    has the intelligence and the ability to benefit from such education and
    training and because he desires to receive it, which is a positive thing.
    This record does not support Rene’s claim that the District Court gave overriding
    consideration to the applicable guideline range and to deterrence concerns without taking
    into account other relevant factors. Rene does not point to any legitimate claims raised by
    him that the District Court failed to address, and it is clear that the District Court gave an
    appropriately careful and individualized consideration of Rene’s case. We find that the
    sentence imposed was reasonable, and Rene’s appeal is therefore denied.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1287

Citation Numbers: 180 F. App'x 339

Filed Date: 5/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023