Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-5-2007
USA v. Carson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4847
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Carson" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 264.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/264
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-4847
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
KENNETH A. CARSON
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00051)
District Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 2, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed November 5, 2007)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties
and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated
recitation of the facts and of our analysis so as to explain why we will affirm the District
Court’s sentence.
Carson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and
distribution of five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine), a violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). He was sentenced to seventy-five months imprisonment,
followed by a four-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Carson contends that the
District Court erred at sentencing by refusing to consider the Sentencing Commission's
findings regarding the 100:1 disparity in the Guidelines sentencing ranges for crack
cocaine and powder cocaine during its analysis of the relevant sentencing factors pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the District Court's sentence for reasonableness. The record here
reflects that the District Court arrived at its decision after it gave “meaningful
consideration” to the relevant § 3553(a) factors. At the sentencing hearing, the District
Court made the following findings: (1) Carson “had a long history of assaultive behavior
and drug-related criminal activity, largely the possession of drugs,” (2) the crime was
“serious ,” and (3) Carson was an “integral cog in this crime.” The District Court also
took into account Carson's “significant” and “extensive” criminal history. In the end,
2
after recognizing that Carson was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years
and a maximum of forty, the District Court found that a sentence of seventy-five months
(6.25 years) to be a reasonable sentence, having taken into account the guideline
provisions, the guideline range in this case and the other § 3553(a) factors. We see no
basis for disturbing this sentence.
The District Court's sentencing methodology comports with requirements of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The District Court understood its authority
to impose a non-guidelines sentence, but chose not to do so. A district court is “under no
obligation to impose a sentence below the applicable Guidelines range solely on the basis
of the crack/powder cocaine differential.” United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 249 (3d
Cir.2006). Here, the District Court specifically considered the crack/powder cocaine ratio,
but found — given its analysis of the relevant § 3553(a) factors — that “I have considered
the defendant’s argument through counsel that I should take into account the differential
with respect to crack cocaine and powder cocaine. I have done that and I have concluded
that whether the differential is considered individually or collectively and thrown into the
mix with all of the other factors that I have previously described, I see no basis on this
record to fashion a sentence below the advisory guideline range.”
Accordingly, we will affirm.
3