Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-28-2006
USA v. Purdie
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2762
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Purdie" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 679.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/679
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2762
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JUANTESHA PURDIE,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00050-2)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on May 16, 2006
Before: RENDELL, VAN ANTWERPEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 28, 2006)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Juantesha Purdie was convicted of bank robbery in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The District Court sentenced her to 37 months imprisonment, based
on an advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range as well as the other
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to be considered in light of United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005). The 37-month sentence imposed by the District Court lies within the
guidelines range (37 to 46 months) and Purdie does not argue that the range was
calculated incorrectly. On appeal, Purdie seeks remand for resentencing because the
sentence imposed was unreasonable due to the District Court’s inadequate consideration
of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, notably, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).1 For the
reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I
On March 2, 2004 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Purdie was indicted on
two counts. Purdie was charged with conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and
with bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On August 9, 2004, she pled
guilty to the bank robbery charge before the District Court and a Presentence
1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). See United States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006). In Cooper, we held that an appellate court has jurisdiction
to review the unreasonableness of a sentence, "whether within or outside the advisory
guidelines range" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). Id. at 328.
2
Investigation Report was prepared. On October 19, 2004, Purdie filed her Position in
Regard to Sentencing Factors as well as a Motion for Downward Departure on seven
grounds: 1. First-Time Offender aberrant behavior; 2. Defendant’s youthful lack of
guidance; 3. Defendant’s minimal role; 4. Defendant’s lack of sophistication in
committing offence (sic); 5. Impact of defendant’s incarceration of minor child; 6.
Defendant’s remorse; and 7. Defendant’s solid employment record and naivete displayed
in committing offence (sic). On April 28, 2005, the District Court filed a Memorandum
Order denying Purdie’s Motion for Downward Departure. The Court recognized each of
the seven grounds put forth by Purdie, responding to each, and concluded that, viewed
together or separately, there was no justification for a downward departure.2 Also on
April 28, 2005, the District Court filed its Tentative Findings and Rulings in which it
determined a guidelines range of 37 to 46 months imprisonment based on an offense
level of 21 and a criminal history category of I.
At the sentencing hearing on May 10, 2005, the Court adopted its tentative
findings and rulings, and the relevant findings in the presentence investigation report and
addendum and imposed a sentence of 37 months imprisonment. Additionally, the Court
2
After Purdie filed her Position with Regard to the Sentencing Factors and her Motion
for Downward Departure, but before the Court denied the motion, the Supreme Court
handed down it decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Judge
highlighted the importance and effect of the decision on the instant case, and
acknowledged his responsibility to now treat the guidelines as advisory and consider the
other § 3553(a) factors when imposing a sentence.
3
ordered that Purdie pay, jointly and severally with Alexis McIntyre, who also participated
in the robbery, restitution in the amount of $70,580.
II
For a sentence to be reasonable under Booker, “[t]he record must
demonstrate the trial court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors,”
which include the range suggested by the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir. 2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). Neither party contends that,
here, the District Court incorrectly calculated the sentencing guidelines range. We then
consider whether the District Court gave “meaningful consideration” to the § 3553(a)
factors and to “any sentencing grounds properly raised by the parties which have
recognized legal merit and factual support in the record.” Id. at 329, 332 (internal
citations omitted). However, “there are no magic words that the district judge must
invoke when sentencing,” and the District Court need not mechanically state by rote that
it has considered each of the factors when issuing a sentence. Id. at 332. Finally, we
consider whether the District Court “reasonably applied [the § 3553(a) factors] to the
circumstances of the case.” Id. at 330. We apply a “deferential standard” in reviewing
the District Court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors, “[t]he trial court being in the best
position to determine the appropriate sentence in light of the particular circumstances of
the case,” and must affirm where the District Court issued a sentence “for reasons that are
logical and consistent with the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” Id. at 330. The party
that challenges the sentence has the burden of proving that it is unreasonable. Id. at 332.
4
III
Purdie argues that the sentence imposed by the District Court was unreasonable.
She contends that the District Court did not adequately consider all of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, most notably, “the nature and circumstances of the offense
and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
Specifically, she claims that the Judge only considered the § 3553(a) factors in the
Court’s Memorandum Order in which he denied the defendant’s motion for downward
departure, but not during sentencing. Purdie also argues that evidence on the record with
regard to § 3553(a)(1) merits a sentence that is less than what is called for by the
sentencing guidelines range calculated by the District Court.
As noted above, we review sentences for reasonableness according to Cooper.
While Purdie claims that the District Court did not sufficiently consider "the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant," [18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)], the record of the proceedings does not support this claim. The
Judge stated the following:
We should also note having been delivered to my chambers
just this morning three letters of recommendation on behalf of
Miss Purdie, one from William B. Meekins, Junior, from the
Garden City United Methodist Church; one from Calvin
Bates, Chairman of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Deacon
Board; and another from Judith Bailey on behalf of Juantesha
Purdie.
The letters have all been read by the Court, and the Court
appreciates the expressions of concern and consideration on
behalf of Miss Purdie by these members of the community.
5
App. at 78-79.
Specifically addressing the § 3553(a) factors, the District Court added:
In accordance with Section 3553 of the Sentencing Reform
Act, in sentencing you, the Court has taken into consideration
the following factors, the nature and circumstances of the
offense as set forth in the indictment, the plea agreement, the
plea hearing record, and the presentence investigation report,
the history and characteristics of you, the defendant, which
are set forth at length in the presentence investigation report,
and which include your personal and family data, your
physical condition, your mental an emotional health, your
educational and vocational skills, and your employment
record.
App. at 93-94.
The sentence is based on the need to reflect the seriousness of
the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just
punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to
criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes by
you, and to provide you with needed educational or vocational
training, medical care, or other correctional training,...and,
lastly, the need to provide restitution to the victim of this
offense.
App. at 97. We are satisfied that the Judge gave meaningful consideration to each of the
§ 3553(a) factors in Purdie’s case.
Finally, we examine the application of the § 3553(a) factors to the circumstances
of Purdie’s case. Before issuing the defendant’s sentence, the Judge stated that he
considered imposing a sentence that was shorter than what was provided for according to
the guidelines range, but he could not justify it. He found that Purdie’s conduct
demonstrated that she was “enmeshed in the criminal conspiracy” from the very onset.
6
The Judge found that Purdie had provided McIntyre with personal information about the
bank manager’s family and advice about how to accomplish the robbery; she did not
activate the alarm and she decided to fill the bag with $70,000. App. at 78-79. The Judge
imposed the minimum sentence within the sentencing guidelines range. We are
convinced that the District Court effectively applied the § 3553(a) factors to the
circumstances in Purdie’s case.
IV
We find that the District Court has demonstrated that it meaningfully considered
the necessary § 3553(a) factors and, applied them to the circumstances of the case in
determining a sentence for the Defendant. We conclude that the sentence imposed by the
District Court was reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
___________________
7