Filed: May 12, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-12-2006 USA v. Thomas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2652 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Thomas" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1118. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1118 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-12-2006 USA v. Thomas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2652 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Thomas" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1118. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1118 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-12-2006
USA v. Thomas
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2652
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Thomas" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1118.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1118
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SONIA MARLENE THOMAS
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
D.C. No. 02-cr-123-2
District Judge: Honorable William L. Standish
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 9, 2006
Before: BARRY, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 12, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
Sonia Marlene Thomas appeals the sentence she received after pleading guilty to
one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of conspiracy to launder
monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). For the reasons that follow,
we will affirm.
I.
As we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the underlying facts, we
shall set out only those facts necessary to our brief discussion. Thomas pleaded guilty to
two counts of a 21-count indictment on October 29, 2002. The presentence report found
that Thomas’s base offense level was 23 and her criminal history category was I, resulting
in a Guidelines range of 46-57 months. Sentencing was postponed numerous times so
that Thomas could assist law enforcement in various investigations. After entering her
plea, Thomas was released on house arrest, the conditions of which she violated several
times.
On March 25, 2004, the day before the sentencing hearing was scheduled, Thomas
filed a motion for a downward departure from the Guidelines pursuant to USSG § 5H1.6
on the grounds that “[s]ervice of a [s]entence within the applicable guidelines range will
cause substantial, direct, and specific loss of essential caretaking, or essential financial
support to the defendant’s family.” Thomas is the mother of seven children, six of whom
are minors. Her husband, who is also the father of the six minor children, was one of her
four co-defendants in this matter and was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In
the motion, Thomas asserted that she is the sole caretaker and means of financial support
2
for the children and that she has no other family members who can care for her children
while she is incarcerated.
On March 26, 2004, Thomas failed to appear at her sentencing hearing. She was
captured in California almost a year later, on March 11, 2005, and was transferred back to
the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was sentenced on April 26, 2005. At the
hearing, the District Court heard argument from both parties on Thomas’s motion for
downward departure for extraordinary family responsibilities. The Government opposed
the motion, arguing that although this was a sad case, Thomas had repeatedly failed to
comply with court orders and to meaningfully cooperate with the Government in its
investigations.
After hearing these arguments, the District Court stated:
Well, based on what I have heard, I don’t believe that, under the guidelines .
. . were they binding, Mrs. Thomas wouldn’t be entitled to a downward
departure. And I’ll, certainly, take her request into consideration, but I don’t
think that she can expect a departure down from the lower end of the
sentencing guideline[s]. And, so, I will proceed here.
Without ruling on the departure, the Court made the finding that Thomas’s
Guidelines range was 46-57 months. The Court then acknowledged that it had read
letters from Thomas’s children, and proceeded to hear Thomas’s testimony. After
listening to Thomas’s testimony and defense counsel’s arguments, the District Court
imposed a sentence of 46 months for each count, to be served concurrently, and to be
followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In explaining its sentence, the
District Court stated:
3
After consideration of the factors set forth in Section 3553 of Title 18, United
States Code, the reason for the imposition of sentence is as follows. The
defendant has entered a guilty plea to conspiring to distribute at least a
hundred kilograms, but less than four hundred kilograms, of marijuana, to
conspiring to launder funds of more than $350,000, but less than $600,000.
She has one previous conviction for possession of marijuana and has agreed
to cooperate with the government.
While the defendant has admitted her guilt to the present offenses, she does not
have an extensive criminal history and, therefore, the Court finds that a
sentence at the lowest end of the guideline range is sufficient to address the
sentencing objectives of punishment, incapacitation, and deterrence.
The Court recognizes that defendant has seven children, several of whom are
minors and with whom the defendant reportedly has a close relationship.
Under the guidelines, family ties are not ordinarily relevant to determining a
sentence. However, under Section 3553, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, including her family ties, are pertinent to crafting an appropriate
sentence.
In addition, the Court recognizes the defendant has a long history of marijuana
use, especially since 1995 or 1996, until the time of her arrest. Defendant
reportedly smoked marijuana on a daily basis.
Under Section 3553(a)(2)(D), the defendant’s need for correctional treatment
is relevant in determining the appropriate sentence. Due to defendant’s history
of drug use and given the nature of the current offense, it is recommended that
the defendant undergo testing and, if necessary, treatment for substance abuse.
In the Court’s view, a sentence of forty-six months at each of Counts One and
Two to be served concurrently is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to
satisfy the purpose of sentencing, given the nature and circumstances of the
offenses and history and characteristics of the defendant and taking into
consideration, also, the fact that this sentence is being imposed a year after it
was originally scheduled, because she didn’t report for sentencing when
sentencing was originally scheduled.
II.
Thomas’s sole contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in denying her
4
request for downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. Under United States v.
Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 271-272 (3d Cir. 1989), which was recently reaffirmed in United
States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir. 2006), our jurisdiction to entertain this
argument depends on the basis for the District Court’s ruling. If the ruling was based on
the District Court’s belief that a departure was legally impermissible under the
Guidelines, we have jurisdiction to determine whether the District Court’s understanding
of the law was correct.
Denardi, 892 F.2d at 271-272. By contrast, if the District Court’s
ruling was based on an exercise of discretion, we lack jurisdiction. Id.; see also United
States v. Minutoli,
374 F.3d 236, 239-240 (3d Cir. 2004) (discussing our jurisdiction to
review denials of downward departure motions).
For example, in United States v. McQuilkin, the district court refused to grant a
discretionary downward departure for extraordinary physical impairment, finding that the
defendant’s “condition was ‘not that type of an impairment so severe and complete that
the downward departure [was] . . . warranted.’” 97 F.3d 723, 730 (3d Cir. 1996). We
observed that this statement could mean one of two things: either “that McQuilkin’s
impairment was not extraordinary enough to allow the court to depart under the authority
of § 5H1.4; or that the nature of the impairment was sufficiently extraordinary to allow
the court to depart, but that the court elected not to depart on this occasion.”
Id.
Interpreting the district court’s statement to mean that McQuilkin did not qualify for
departure under the Guidelines, we held that we had jurisdiction to review this legal
question.
Id.
5
Thomas argues that her case is like McQuilkin, and that we have jurisdiction to
determine whether Thomas’s family responsibilities were sufficiently extraordinary to
qualify for a departure under the Guidelines. She argues that the District Court’s
statement, “Well, based on what I have heard, I don’t believe that, under the Guidelines,
I, were they binding, Mrs. Thomas wouldn’t be entitled to a downward departure[,]”
indicates that it was making a legal determination that Thomas does not qualify for a
departure under the Guidelines.
Although we agree that this statement, considered alone, implies that the District
Court made a legal determination that Thomas did not qualify for a departure under the
Guidelines, we are not persuaded that this was the basis of the District Court’s refusal to
depart. After Booker, district courts are no longer bound by the Guidelines and they may
depart regardless of whether a defendant qualifies for a downward departure under the
Guidelines. Accordingly, whether a defendant qualifies for a departure under the
Guidelines is of decreased significance after Booker. Here, the District Court merely
observed that it believed that Thomas would not qualify under the Guidelines, while
explicitly noting that the Guidelines are not binding. It then stated that it will nonetheless
“take her request [for a downward departure] into consideration[.]” After listening to
Thomas’s testimony, the District Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of the § 3553(a)
factors, explicitly addressing Thomas’s family circumstances. The Court ultimately
concluded that Thomas’s need for substance abuse treatment, the seriousness of her
crime, and her failure to report for sentencing weighed against a shorter sentence. In light
6
of the entire record, we are satisfied that the District Court’s denial of Thomas’s motion
for downward departure was based on discretionary, rather than legal, considerations, and
consequently we do not have jurisdiction to review its decision.
Moreover, even if the District Court relied on a legal determination in denying the
motion to depart, it correctly applied the proper legal standard. Although the
circumstances in this case are certainly unfortunate, they simply do not qualify as
“extraordinary” under this Court’s precedents. See United States v. Sweeting, 213 F.3d
95, 108-109 (3d Cir. 2000) (finding that the district court abused its discretion in granting
a downward departure to a single mother providing for five children, one of whom had a
neurological disorder); United States v. Headley,
923 F.2d 1079, 1082 (3d Cir. 1991)
(affirming the denial of departure for a single mother of five minor children and
observing that “every court to consider the issue of departure based on the effect that
sentencing a single parent to prison will have on minor children has found the
circumstances not to be extraordinary”). Accordingly, inasmuch as the District Court
may have relied on a legal determination, there was no error.
III.
We have considered all contentions presented by the parties and conclude that no
further discussion is necessary.1 We will affirm Thomas’s sentence.
1
To the extent that Thomas’s brief can be read to argue that the District Court erred by
failing to make “findings on the evidence presented for downward departure,” failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors, and imposing an unreasonable sentence, see United States
v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005), we reject those arguments. No specific findings are
7
______________________________
necessary for denying a downward departure. See United States v. Georgiadas, 993 F.2d
1219, 1222-1223 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that sentencing courts are not required to make
express statements explaining a denial of downward departure). Similarly, district courts
do not need to discuss and make specific findings on each of the § 3553(a) factors.
Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329. Rather, the record need only demonstrate that the district court
gave “meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.”
Id. We are satisfied that the
District Court meaningfully considered those factors here. And because the District
Court reasonably applied the § 3553(a) factors and meaningfully considered all
arguments raised by the parties that have “recognized legal merit and factual support in
the record,” Thomas has not met her burden of proving that the sentence was
unreasonable. See
id. at 332.
8
