United States v. Henry ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-12-2009
USA v. Henry
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2594
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Henry" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1867.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1867
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 08-2594
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
KERONE HENRY,
a/k/a "J"
Kerone Henry, Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 3-06-cr-00405-3
District Judge: The Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 30, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 12, 2009)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Kerone Henry challenges the length of his term of imprisonment.1
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and this Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Henry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and crack cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and aiding and abetting the interference with interstate commerce by
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. His advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range was 121 to 151 months of imprisonment. On May 19, 2008, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Henry to 150 months of
imprisonment. We will affirm.
We review the District Court’s sentence first for procedural reasonableness, then
for substantive reasonableness. United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir.
2008). In doing so, we apply the “abuse of discretion” standard. United States v. Wise,
515 F.3d 207, 217–18 (3d Cir. 2008). “[A] district court will be held to have abused its
discretion if its decision was based on a clearly erroneous factual conclusion or an
erroneous legal conclusion.” Id. at 217. Here, Henry admits his sentence fell within his
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, and he does not claim any error in the calculation
of that range. This weighs heavily in favor of his sentence’s procedural and substantive
reasonableness. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007) (“[W]hen a district
judge’s discretionary decision in a particular case accords with the sentence the United
States Sentencing Commission deems appropriate ‘in the mine run of cases,’ the court of
appeals may presume that the sentence is reasonable.”).
Nevertheless, Henry argues that his sentence was unreasonable because it created a
sentencing disparity between his sentence and those imposed on two co-defendants who
also pleaded guilty to the same offenses. He asserts that the District Court either 1)
2
committed legal error by not recognizing that it had the authority to reduce his sentence to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, or 2) abused its discretion by failing to
adequately consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities as mandated by
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
The record does not support Henry’s claims. First, the District Court clearly
recognized its power to adjust Henry’s sentence to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities. After Henry raised the sentencing disparity issue at his sentencing hearing,
the District Court asked a number of questions about the nature and circumstances of the
sentences imposed on Henry’s two co-defendants. This shows that the District Court
appreciated the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) required it to consider, as one of many
factors, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Second, the District Court thoughtfully and meaningfully considered the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. As the District Court discovered during
Henry’s sentencing hearing, a number of differences exist between Henry and his two co-
defendants. Most significantly, unlike Henry, both of his co-defendants cooperated with
the Government, and the Government made downward departure motions for them,
pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1, because of their substantial assistance.
Additionally, unlike Henry, one co-defendant negotiated a plea agreement that specified
the length of his imprisonment. “So long as factors considered by the sentencing court
are not inconsistent with those listed in § 3553(a) and are logically applied to the
defendant’s circumstances, we afford deference to the court’s ‘broad discretion in
3
imposing a sentence within a statutory range.’” United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273,
278 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005)). Here,
we see nothing illogical about the manner in which the District Court applied 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) to Henry’s particular circumstances.
Finally, “a defendant cannot rely upon § 3553(a)(6) to seek a reduced sentence
designed to lessen disparity between co-defendants’ sentences.” Id. at 277. This is
because “Congress’s primary goal in enacting § 3553(a)(6) was to promote national
uniformity in sentencing rather than uniformity among co-defendants in the same case.”
Id. Here, Henry has not suggested that upholding his sentence would undermine national
uniformity in sentencing, only that it would create sentencing disparities between himself
and his co-defendants. This is not enough to persuade us that Henry’s sentence was
unreasonable. Accordingly, we will affirm the sentence that the District Court imposed.
4