Filed: Jan. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-1517 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. QUAME HERD, AKA Doedoe, AKA Worm, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 2-18-cr-000596-001) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 16, 2020 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: January 27, 2020) _ OPINION * _ * This disposition i
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 19-1517 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. QUAME HERD, AKA Doedoe, AKA Worm, Appellant _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 2-18-cr-000596-001) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 16, 2020 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: January 27, 2020) _ OPINION * _ * This disposition is..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 19-1517
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
QUAME HERD,
AKA Doedoe,
AKA Worm,
Appellant
_______________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(No. 2-18-cr-000596-001)
District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
_______________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 16, 2020
Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: January 27, 2020)
____________
OPINION *
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.
After pleading guilty to distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(C), Quame Herd received a 151-month prison sentence. Although that
sentence was at the bottom of the advisory range of 151-to-188 months under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, Herd now appeals. He argues that due to his individual
circumstances, his sentence should have been less. As an appeal from a final order and
from a judgment imposing a sentence, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we
have jurisdiction, and in evaluating the substantive reasonableness of Herd’s sentence
under an abuse-of-discretion standard, see United States v. Tomko,
562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d
Cir. 2009) (en banc), we will affirm the judgment of sentence.
The analysis starts with the presumption that a within-Guidelines sentence, such as
Herd’s, is reasonable. See Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (permitting a
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences); United States v.
Handerhan,
739 F.3d 114, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2014) (“If the sentence is within the
applicable Guidelines range, we may presume that the sentence is reasonable.”).
Herd attempts to overcome that presumption by arguing that the District Court
undervalued Herd’s specific life circumstances and overvalued his criminal history in
imposing the sentence. He emphasizes that although he was raised in a high-crime
neighborhood, with an absentee father and a mother who frequently used drugs during his
childhood, he nonetheless recently demonstrated determination in overcoming his prior
drug use and in improving his life, which the District Court acknowledged at the
sentencing hearing. Herd also contends that his sentence is too high because his criminal
2
history consists exclusively of minor drug offenses – as a low-level drug dealer, not a
kingpin – and not violent crimes.
Those arguments, while persuasive enough to convince the District Court to
impose a bottom-of-the-Guidelines-range sentence, do not satisfy the “heavy burden of
showing that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range was substantively
unreasonable.” United States v. Fountain,
792 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2015). The nature
of the offense, Herd’s extensive criminal history, his likelihood of recidivism, the interest
in protecting society from future crimes, and the value of deterring criminal conduct –
factors considered by the District Court in sentencing Herd – all prevent Herd from
meeting that heavy burden. Accordingly, we will affirm his judgment of sentence.
3