United States v. Olmeda

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-13-2006
USA v. Olmeda
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4384
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Olmeda" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 904.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/904
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHELLE OLMEDA,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-00136)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 9, 2006
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
( filed: June 13, 2006 )
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
After a downward departure that cut her sentence by more than half, Michelle
Olmeda nonetheless appealed. We affirm, as the sentence was reasonable and the District
Court properly accounted for all necessary factors in crafting the sentence.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
The facts are familiar to the parties, so we give only a brief summary of relevant
events.
Michelle Olmeda was a heroin addict. While living in Pennsylvania, she
purchased heroin from Eddie Boykins, who was from New Jersey. She introduced Ollie
Troxell to Boykins so that Troxell could get heroin more cheaply. Olmeda knew that
Troxell resold some of that heroin in central Pennsylvania.
Olmeda moved to Maryland in 2001; she received money transfers from Troxell as
a “finder’s fee” for introducing him to Boykins. She used the money to support her
heroin addiction. In September 2003, Troxell’s house was raided, prompting Boykins to
stop supplying him with heroin. Olmeda re-introduced Troxell to Boykins, and Troxell’s
heroin supply line opened again. As a result, Olmeda continued to get money transfers
from Troxell.
Law enforcement began reeling in various members of the Pennsylvania heroin
network, including Troxell, Boykins, and Olmeda. Olmeda was indicted for conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 grams of heroin, and pled guilty in
June 2004. The initial sentence recommendation was a range of 140 to 175 months, but
Olmeda and the Government both moved for a downward departure. The District Court
granted an eight-level downward departure and sentenced Olmeda to 70 months’
2
imprisonment (the bottom of the revised 70-to-87-month range). She appeals that
sentence.
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324,
326 (3d Cir. 2006).
III. Discussion
Our first question in the reasonableness determination is whether the District Court
considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 329. The Court did so
expressly in the sentencing hearing.
Our second question, applying a deferential standard, is whether the District Court
reasonably applied the § 3553(a) factors to the circumstances of the case. Id. at 330. The
Court granted an eight-level departure, more than the six-level departure requested by the
Government. The Court properly and thoughtfully took into account the § 3553(a) factors
in crafting its sentence.
Finally, we decline to review the District Court’s decision to deny the further
departures requested by Olmeda. See id. at 333.
*****
We thus affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.
3