United States v. Thomas , 254 F. App'x 937 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2007 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    11-26-2007
    USA v. Thomas
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-3535
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Thomas" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 197.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/197
    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 2007 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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 06-3535
    _______________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    HASSAN THOMAS,
    Appellant
    _______________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. No. 03-cr-00062-2)
    District Judge: Hon. Yvette Kane
    _______________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    November 8, 2007
    Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
    (Filed November 26, 2007)
    _______________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    _______________
    JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
    Hassan Thomas pleaded guilty to a one-count Superseding Information charging
    him with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
    841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced him to a term of 176 months’ imprisonment. We
    vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United States v.
    Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005). On remand, the District Court imposed the same sentence,
    and Thomas appeals.
    Thomas argues that the sentence imposed by the District Court was unreasonable.
    We disagree. The District Court followed the three-step process we articulated in United
    States v. Gunter, 
    462 F.3d 237
    (3d Cir. 2006), for sentencing after Booker. First, Thomas
    conceded that there was no dispute as to the advisory guideline range. See 
    Id. at 247
    (“Courts must continue to calculate the defendant’s guidelines sentence precisely as they
    would have before Booker.”). Second, Thomas conceded that he had made no motions
    for departure from the guidelines. See 
    id. (“[Courts] must...rule
    on the motions of both
    parties and state on the record whether they are granting a departure....”).
    Thomas’ argument therefore centers on the third and final step set forth in Gunter,
    that is, the District Court’s exercise of discretion in considering the relevant § 3553(a)
    factors in sentencing. 
    Id. At his
    re-sentencing hearing, Thomas informed the District
    Court that his mother was a substance abuser and a convict, and that his father was also a
    drug addict, drug dealer, and convict. As a result, Thomas was raised by various family
    members in an environment where drug use and violence were commonplace, and
    eventually Thomas began selling drugs himself. Thomas also raised the issue of the
    disparity in the relevant guideline imprisonment ranges for powder cocaine as opposed to
    crack cocaine.
    2
    After hearing and considering Thomas’ arguments and his request for leniency,
    the District Court re-sentenced Thomas to the original sentence of 176 months
    imprisonment. The District Court stated:
    I find the guideline range is reasonable under all of the circumstances,
    and after having carefully considered each of the elements listed in
    3553(a), the circumstances, this young man’s background as a member
    of an established drug organization over a number of years, I believe
    that the sentence originally imposed was appropriate to reflect the
    seriousness of his conduct, to promote respect for the law, to provide
    adequate punishment and deterrence, to protect the public, and to
    provide the treatment and rehabilitation that he needs.
    (Appx. at 57-58.)
    We find that the District Court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a)
    factors. The term of 176 months imprisonment was in the middle of the guideline range
    that Thomas concedes was accurately calculated. The District Court then found the
    guideline range to be reasonable “under all of the circumstances,” which indicates that the
    Court considered all of Thomas’ arguments. Thomas also admits that the District Court
    “addressed most, if not all, factors set forth in § 3553(a).” (Appellant’s Br. at 17.) In light
    of Thomas’ concessions and the District Court’s consideration of the relevant 3553(a)
    factors, we find that the sentence imposed was reasonable and within the District Court’s
    discretion.
    For these reasons, we will affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-3535

Citation Numbers: 254 F. App'x 937

Filed Date: 11/26/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023