Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-20-2008
USA v. Giardina
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1363
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Giardina" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 996.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/996
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-1363
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RUSSELL T. GIARDINA,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-00029-1)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 9, 2008
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed June 20, 2008 )
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Russell Giardina appeals his 151-month sentence for distributing fewer than 100
grams of heroin, arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We disagree, and accordingly
affirm.
Giardina has a history of drug offenses. In 2000 he pled guilty to delivering
cocaine, receiving a sentence of approximately 12–24 months. In 2002 he pled guilty to
possessing heroin with intent to deliver it, and received a similar sentence.
After his release, in March 2003 (at the age of 23), Giardina committed the offense
now before us: he sold .24 grams of heroin in the presence of an undercover police
officer. He was indicted and pled guilty. At the sentencing hearing, the District Court
determined that because Giardina was a career offender, the advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range was 151–188 months. Giardina argued for a sentence below the
Guidelines range because of his young age, the absence of parental role models in his life,
his status as an addict, and his devotion to his friends, family and community. The Court
noted Giardina’s significant history of involvement with drugs, however, and, relying in
part on this history, sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the
Guidelines range, as well as 3 years’ supervised release.
On appeal, Giardina accepts that the District Court accurately calculated the
Guidelines range and considered the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, but argues that
the 151-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.1 We disagree. Giardina’s age,
lack of a role model, status as an addict, and devotion to family and friends, though
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a District Court’s sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir. 2007).
2
relevant, must be considered along with the need to afford adequate deterrence of
criminal conduct and protect the public from further drug dealing by Giardina. See
§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). He has twice received short sentences for drug crimes, and these
did not prevent him from continuing to offend. The District Court concluded that a
longer sentence was therefore necessary, and the mitigating circumstances are insufficient
to render that conclusion unreasonable. See Bungar, 478 F.3d at 546 (refusing to “find
that a district court’s failure to give mitigating factors the weight a defendant contends
they deserve renders the sentence unreasonable”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
3