Filed: Sep. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-29-2008 USA v. Thomas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2304 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Thomas" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 471. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/471 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-29-2008 USA v. Thomas Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2304 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Thomas" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 471. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/471 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States ..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-29-2008
USA v. Thomas
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2304
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Thomas" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 471.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/471
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 07-2304
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FERLANDA O'NEIL THOMAS,
a/k/a Perlanda O'Neal Thomas,
Appellant.
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cr-00634)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Golden
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 26, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 29, 2008)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Ferlanda O’Neil Thomas appeals the District Court’s decision to sentence him to
240 months’ imprisonment for armed carjacking. On appeal, he challenges the District
Court’s grant of upward departures of one level each for extreme psychological injury to
the victim and for extreme conduct. Thomas also contests the District Court’s application
of a thirty-month upward variance from the advisory range applicable under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). Because we find that the District Court did
not abuse its discretion by granting the upward departures or imposing the variance, we
will affirm.
I. Background
On the afternoon of September 14, 2006, Lisa Marie Golas left the Lehigh Valley
Mall in Whitehall, Pennsylvania, and walked to her car. As she climbed into her vehicle,
Thomas approached Golas, put a knife to her neck and told her that he would kill her if
she did not move into the passenger’s seat. Golas complied and Thomas drove the
vehicle from the mall. Golas gave Thomas money from her purse and implored him to
take her car and let her go, but Thomas refused. While still driving, Thomas ordered
Golas to pull down her pants and lift up her shirt. He then proceeded to sexually assault
her. When Thomas began to pull his pants down and indicated that he planned to
sexually assault Golas again, she checked the rear-view mirror, unlocked the car door and
jumped from the speeding vehicle. Golas estimated that when she jumped, the vehicle
was traveling between 65 and 70 miles per hour.
Golas was found on the side of the road by department of corrections officers and
was rushed to a local hospital, where she was treated for numerous lacerations and
2
abrasions, including a five centimeter gash that exposed a portion of her skull. A CAT
scan also detected blood pooling in Golas’s brain.
Two days later, Thomas was arrested in Mississippi and admitted to the carjacking.
He was indicted and pled guilty to one count of armed carjacking. At the sentencing
hearing, the District Court calculated the Guidelines range for Thomas’s offense. The
government then moved for upward departures for intent to murder, extreme
psychological injury to the victim, and extreme conduct. The Court found that the
government had not established intent to murder but, as earlier noted, granted upward
departures of one level each for extreme psychological injury and for extreme conduct.
After factoring in the departures, the Guidelines range for Thomas’s offense was 168 -
210 months. The Court imposed an upward variance of thirty months and sentenced
Thomas to 240 months in prison.
Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal and now challenges the District Court’s
decision to grant the upward departures and to impose the upward variance.
II. Discussion
A. Upward Departures: Extreme Psychological Injury and Extreme Conduct
We review a district court’s decision to depart from the Guidelines range for abuse
of discretion. U.S. v. Queensborough,
227 F.3d 149, 158 (3rd Cir. 2000). A court may
depart from the Guidelines range if it finds that “a victim or victims suffered
psychological injury much more serious than that normally resulting from commission of
3
the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3. The District Court heard medical testimony that Golas
suffered from post-traumatic stress that had been compounded by the sexual assault. It
also took testimony from Golas’s husband who stated that the incident had changed
Golas’s personality and weakened her memory. On the strength of this evidence, the
Court found that Golas suffered extreme psychological injuries much more serious than
those that normally result from the crime of armed carjacking. The record shows that the
District Court had ample grounds for reaching that conclusion.
A court may also grant an upward departure if it finds that “the defendant’s
conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim.” U.S.S.G.
§ 5K2.8. The District Court found that Thomas had forced Golas to make a horrifying
choice: be sexually assaulted again or leap from a speeding vehicle. The Court then
concluded that the departure for extreme conduct was warranted because of the “pure fear
and terror that Golas suffered.” (Appendix at 226.) We agree. Because there is more
than sufficient evidence that Thomas’s conduct was extreme and that Golas suffered
extreme psychological injuries, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting
the upward departures.
B. Upward Variance: Thirty Months
Review of a district court’s sentence is a two-step process. See Gall v. U.S.,
128
S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). First, we “ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
4
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Id. If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Id.
In this case, the District Court met all of the procedural requirements. In its
analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, the Court enunciated several substantive reasons for
imposing the variance, including the time and place of the carjacking, the use of a deadly
weapon, the sexual assault, the severity of Golas’s physical and psychological injures, and
Thomas’s total disregard for Golas’s life and well-being. In addition, the Court stated its
desire to have the sentence reflect the seriousness of the crime, promote respect for the
law, serve as a deterrent, protect the public from Thomas, and afford Thomas the
opportunity to get the help he needs. The District Court’s reasoning is sufficient to justify
its imposition of the variance. We hold, therefore, that the District Court’s sentence was
procedurally sound and substantively reasonable.
III. Conclusion
The District Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the upward departures or
imposing the upward variance, and we will therefore affirm its judgment.
5