Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-26-2007
USA v. Clark
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2447
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Clark" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 697.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/697
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-2447
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAH CLARK,
Appellant.
________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00415)
District Court Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 28, 2007
BEFORE: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 26, 2007)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Michah Clark appeals his sentence of 87 months in prison. We have jurisdiction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review sentences generally for reasonableness, United
States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 2006), and exercise plenary review over
questions of law, United States v. Lloyd, 469 F.3d 319, 321 (3d Cir. 2006). For the
following reasons, we will affirm.
Appellant Michah Clark was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting an armed
bank robbery. In April 2003, after calculating a Sentencing Guidelines range of 87 to 108
months, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen M. Orlofsky sentenced Clark to 97 months in
prison. We affirmed the judgment on appeal, but later remanded the case to the District
Court for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Judge
Orlofsky had retired by the time of our remand and the case was reassigned to U.S.
District Court Judge Joseph E. Irenas.
Although he ordered that the probation department update the Pre-Sentence Report
(“PSR”) to include Clark’s educational and rehabilitative efforts, Judge Irenas denied
Clark’s request for a brand new PSR. At the resentencing hearing, Judge Irenas first
stated that he would not “revisit guideline issues.” App. 28. Then, while carefully
balancing the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Judge Irenas considered Clark’s
efforts to rehabilitate himself, and ultimately sentenced him to 87 months in prison.
Clark now argues on appeal that the District Court should have conducted a de
novo sentencing hearing. We disagree. Our remand instructed the District Court “to
reconsider the sentence in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Booker.” Supp.
App. 30 (emphasis added). The District Court did exactly what we ordered and properly
exercised its discretion under § 3553(a) to reduce the sentence by ten months. Even were
a recalculation of the Guidelines range necessary, Judge Irenas made clear that he
2
believed Judge Orlofsky and the probation department “got it right,” App. 59, and Clark
has failed to demonstrate that his Guidelines range was incorrect. We will affirm.
3