Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-30-2006
USA v. Walker
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2624
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Walker" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1363.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1363
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2624
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL WALKER,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 04-cr-00280-1)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 28, 2006
Before: RENDELL, SMITH, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed March 30, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Michael Walker appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on May 11, 2005,
committing him to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. Walker
pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). As part of
the plea agreement, he stipulated that he distributed or possessed with intent to distribute
50 to 150 grams of cocaine base. Walker contends that the sentence is unduly severe
given evidence of Walker’s support for his biological children and his girlfriend’s other
two children, his immediate acceptance of responsibility, and his potential for
rehabilitation. Additionally, Walker submits that a sentence as harsh as ten years was
unnecessary to deter Walker or others from future crime. His legal argument (this is a
post-Booker sentence), see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is that the
sentence was unreasonable under the dictates of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We have carefully examined the transcript of sentencing. Walker’s counsel
advanced each of these arguments and presented the testimony of Walker’s girlfriend, and
Judge Nealon listened and engaged in colloquy. After doing so, Judge Nealon declared
that “the court finds . . . a sentence of 120 months to be reasonable in view of the
considerations expressed in 18 U.S. Code Section 3553(a)” and “the government’s
motion for downward departure pursuant to Sentencing Guideline 5K1.1.”1 He noted,
inter alia, Walker’s “long road of criminal offenses” starting at age 12. The ultimate
sentence was well below the minimum guidelines range.
To the extent that Walker is alleging error for failure to depart downward on
account of family ties and responsibilities, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See United
1
Walker received a Guidelines § 5K1.1 downward departure, as well as a three-point
reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
2
States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir. 2006). Otherwise we have authority to
review the sentence for reasonableness. See id. at 327. However, the Court did
everything the Cooper panel requires in terms of its analysis and we find no error in its
determination of reasonableness.
The judgment of sentence will be affirmed.
3