Filed: Nov. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2008 USA v. Ingram Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3678 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Ingram" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 197. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/197 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2008 USA v. Ingram Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3678 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Ingram" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 197. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/197 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
11-25-2008
USA v. Ingram
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3678
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Ingram" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 197.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/197
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3678
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JUBA INGRAM,
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 3:07-cr-0048)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a),
November 17, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 25, 2008 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
1
distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the District Court sentenced Juba
Ingram to 132 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
Ingram challenges his sentence, arguing that (1) the District Court erred in finding that he
was a career offender; (2) the District Court failed to recognize its authority to grant a
downward departure on the basis of an overstated criminal history, or a combination of
factors; and (3) his sentence was unreasonable.1 We conclude that these arguments are
without merit and will affirm the sentence.
I.
The District Court found that Ingram was a career offender as defined in United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions for a
controlled substance offense and crimes of violence, in particular: (1) manufacturing,
distributing, or dispensing a controlled substance on July 25, 1988; (2) robbery on
November 19, 1988; and (3) robbery on June 10, 1991. Each of these offenses was
separated by an intervening arrest.2 Ingram was ultimately convicted of these offenses,
and on November 21, 1991, he received concurrent sentences of incarceration for all three
offenses. Ingram argues that these offenses were consolidated for sentencing and should
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Indeed, the second and third of these offenses were separated by three additional
arrests that led to convictions, but did not contribute to Ingram’s criminal history score.
2
not have been treated as separate sentences.3 The District Court properly determined that
these were separate sentences as instructed by Application Note 3 to Guidelines § 4A1.2
(2005) and our decision in United States v. Hallman, 23 F.3d 821, 825 (3d Cir. 1994).4
II.
Ingram also maintains that the District Court failed to recognize its authority to
grant a downward departure based on his argument that the career offender designation
overstated his criminal history. Similarly, Ingram argues that the District Court failed to
recognize its authority under Guidelines § 5K2.0 to depart based on a combination of
factors.
“We do not have jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions by district courts to
not depart downward. Jurisdiction arises, however, if the district court’s refusal to depart
downward is based on the mistaken belief that it lacks discretion to do otherwise.”
United States v. Vargas, 477 F.3d 94, 103 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “Our review
of the District Court’s legal conclusion that it lacked discretion to consider a departure
based on family circumstances is de novo.” United States v. Dominguez,
296 F.3d 192,
194-95 (3d Cir. 2002). We review the sentencing transcript as a whole and “will not
3
We exercise plenary review over a district court’s interpretation of the
Guidelines, reviewing its factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Grier,
475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc).
4
The Guidelines have since been amended to make it even more clear that offenses
separated by intervening arrests should be treated as separate sentences. See Guidelines §
4A1.2 (2007).
3
elevate form over substance.” United States v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501, 506 (3d Cir. 2006).
Although it could have been clearer, the transcript does not suggest that the
District Court doubted its discretion to depart downward on the bases argued by Ingram.5
After arguments by counsel, the District Court denied both motions. Thus, we conclude
that the District Court recognized its discretion to depart downward.
III.
Finally, Ingram argues that his sentence was unreasonable because it was not based
on the individualized facts and circumstances of Ingram’s case. Further, Ingram argues
that the District Court gave undue weight to the nature of the offense and deterrence, and
insufficient weight to other factors including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities.
We review a district court’s ultimate determination of a sentence for
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Gunter,
527 F.3d 282, 284 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, — U.S. —,
128 S. Ct. 586,
597-98 (2007); United States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324, 327-28 (3d Cir. 2006)).
In its sentencing remarks, the District Court set forth the factors it was required to
consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It acknowledged Ingram’s “difficult upbringing,”
5
In particular, the Government never argued that the District Court lacked
discretion to depart on these bases. Further, the District Court did clearly deny Ingram’s
motion for a downward departure pursuant to § 5K2.0 on the merits, ruling that “I find no
factors that warrant a downward departure.” (App. at 56.)
4
“hard life,” and the “significant changes” Ingram was making in his life. (App. 63, 66.)
The District Court further acknowledged Ingram’s loving family. (App. 66.) The District
Court indicated that it would take these circumstances into consideration. Id. However,
the District Court also noted the “very, very serious” nature of Ingram’s criminal conduct
and the need to “send the right message that . . . the conduct [Ingram was] involved in is
not tolerated in our community.” (App. 67.) Ultimately, the District Court imposed a
sentence below the applicable Guidelines range. 6 We find that the District Court
appropriately considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Accordingly, we conclude that
this sentence was reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of
sentence.
6
After granting a motion for a downward departure not at issue here, the District
Court found that the applicable Guidelines range was 151 to 188 months. The sentence
ultimately imposed was 132 months. According to the District Court, this reduction was
based on the same circumstances it considered in granting that motion.
5
