United States v. Rahiem Brooks

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-2347
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RAHIEM J. BROOKS,
Appellant
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. 14-cr-00334-1)
District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
__________________________________________
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R.
March 24, 2016
___________________________
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 19, 2016)
_____________
OPINION*
_____________
GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents the question of whether the District Court committed
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
procedural error during sentencing by failing to acknowledge and respond to one of
Defendant-Appellant Raheim J. Brooks’s arguments in support of a lower sentence.
Because the District Court’s sentencing statement was sufficient to meet plain-error
review, we will affirm.
I. Background
Brooks was indicted on, and eventually pled guilty to, seven counts of access
device fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2), (b)(1) and 2.
In 2013, the Amtrak Police Department received information that numerous train tickets
were being purchased with stolen credit card information. Investigators eventually traced
these purchases to Brooks. In addition to the train ticket purchases, Brooks used the
credit cards to obtain other goods and services. Brooks pleaded guilty to all counts
charged in the indictment in open court.
Following Brooks’s guilty plea, the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”),
which used the 2014 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”),
set Brooks’s total offense level at 13 and classified his criminal history at VI.
Accordingly, the Guidelines sentence for Brooks’s conviction included 33 to 41 months’
imprisonment.
In a sentencing memorandum, Brooks presented mitigating arguments in support
of a downward variance. The memorandum emphasized Brooks’s abusive upbringing
and his efforts to rehabilitate. Brooks argued that a below-Guidelines range sentence was
appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that a within-Guidelines range sentence
2
would be “excessive and unwarranted to achieve the statutory objective.” J.A. 34.
During sentencing, Brooks reiterated his arguments for a downward variance based on
his upbringing.
The District Court sentenced Brooks to a within-Guidelines sentence range of 38
months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release for all counts,
and $43,036.67 in restitution. Before announcing the sentence, the Court noted the
nature of the crime, Brooks’s criminal history, and the need to promote deterrence. The
Court’s statements did not include any reference to Brooks’s upbringing. After
announcing the sentence, the District Court asked: “Counsel, is there anything else that
requires attention?” J.A. 82. Brooks’s counsel replied, “No, Your Honor.” J.A. 82.
Brooks timely appealed. He argues that the District Court committed procedural
error by failing to meaningfully consider his personal characteristics, specifically his
upbringing, which he believes supported a downward variance.
II. Standard of Review1
Brooks did not preserve the instant issue for appeal, and thus we review for plain
error. United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc). An
error is plain if it, inter alia, “affected the outcome of the District Court proceedings.” Id.
at 259 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
III. Analysis
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
3
We will affirm as Brooks does not show that the error of which he complains
affected the outcome of the proceedings. During the sentencing colloquy, the District
Court explained that the nature and circumstances of the offense supported a within-
Guidelines range sentence, stating that the crime displayed a “level of self-indulgence,”
noting that the instant offense reflected Brooks’s “repeated violations of the law,” and
stressing the “troubling” nature of Brooks’s criminal history. J.A. 79–80. It went on to
observe that “the Probation Department pointed out that indeed one might even raise [the
sentence] higher than it is.” J.A. 80. The Court also expressed its “concern[] about the
fact that the crimes repeat.” J.A. 80. Taking these factors into consideration, the Court
told Brooks: “a guideline sentence is warranted and, candidly, sir, toward the higher
range of the guidelines.” J.A. 80.
Thus, the Court’s sentencing statements evinced its belief that the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the extent of Brooks’s criminal history strongly
militated against a lower sentence. Given these statements, we cannot conclude that the
District Court would have imposed a different sentence if it had specifically addressed
Brooks’s arguments about his upbringing.2
IV. Conclusion
2
Brooks argues that there is a reasonable probability that the court would have
imposed a lower sentence, because the instant conviction was not “egregious,” and his
abusive childhood was “unquestionably mitigating.” Reply Br. 7–8. The record
suggests, however, that the District Court had great concerns regarding the seriousness of
the conviction, especially in the context of Brooks’s criminal history. Thus, given the
District Court’s statements in support of the sentence it imposed, we cannot conclude that
4
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction.
there is a reasonable probability that the Court would have imposed a lower sentence.
5