Filed: Jun. 20, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-20-2008 USA v. Marrero Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2599 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Marrero" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 994. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/994 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-20-2008 USA v. Marrero Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2599 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Marrero" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 994. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/994 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-20-2008
USA v. Marrero
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2599
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Marrero" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 994.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/994
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2599
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CARLOS AYALA MARRERO,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-00032-3)
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 10, 2008
BEFORE: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 20, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before the Court on Carlos Ayala Marrero’s appeal from an
order entered in the District Court on May 18, 2007, revoking a term of supervised release
imposed on him and sentencing him to an 11-month term of imprisonment to be followed
by a 24-month term of supervised release. The District Court imposed the original term
of supervised release to follow the service of a custodial term when Marrero pleaded
guilty to stealing firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 924(h)(1). While Marrero was on supervised release following the
completion of his custodial term he was using illegal drugs. As a result his probation
officer on April 5, 2007, filed a Petition on Supervised Release setting forth Marrero’s
violations of the conditions of supervised release and requesting that the court order him
to show cause why his term should not be revoked. On April 9, 2007, the District Court
issued the requested order to show cause.
At the hearing on the return date of the order to show cause on May 16, 2007,
Marrero admitted to using controlled substances and to other violations of the conditions
of supervision. Consequently, the court revoked his term of supervised release and
imposed the new custodial term to be followed by the period of supervised release that we
set forth above. Marrero’s sole contention on this appeal is that the custodial 11-month
term was unreasonable. He does not contend that he did not violate the terms of his
supervised release and he does not challenge the imposition of the new term of supervised
release. The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s sentence for
reasonableness. See United States v. Bungar,
478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir. 2007).
We see nothing unreasonable in the sentence. The guidelines range was five to 11
2
months. Thus, the sentence was within the guidelines range and, as we indicated in
United States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324, 331 (3d Cir. 2006), was “more likely to be
reasonable than one that lies outside” the range. In this case Marrero repeatedly violated
the terms of his supervised release and thus the court was justified in imposing the
sentence.
The order of May 18, 2007, will be affirmed.
3