Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-12-2008
USA v. Carstarphen
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3136
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Carstarphen" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1618.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1618
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-3136
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONALD CARSTARPHEN,
Appellant
___________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Crim. No. 05-cr-00467-02)
District Court: Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin
______________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a)
December 6, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: February 12, 2008)
__________________________
OPINION
__________________________
McKee, Circuit Judge
Ronald Carstarphen appeals the sentence that was imposed following his
guilty plea arguing that it was unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we will
affirm the sentence.
I.
Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties, it is not necessary to recite
the facts of this case.1 Carstarphen’s challenge to his sentence relies on United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Carstarphen acknowledges that the district court appeared to comply with
the methodology for imposing sentences after Booker that we prescribed in United
States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006). Appellant’s Br. at 12-13. We
agree. The court significantly reduced the sentence suggested by the advisory
guideline range based upon the defendant’s cooperation and the government’s
“5K1" motion. In imposing sentence the court explained that it was concerned
with the defendant’s criminal history “from the time [he was] very young just
showing no consideration to what the law requires.” 2 However, the court went
beyond the mere numbers and appropriately considered his age at the time of his
1
The government initially filed a motion to dismiss Carstarphen’s appeal based upon the
appellate waiver that was part of his plea agreement. We are now informed that the
government has withdrawn that motion. See Appellee’s Br. at 2.
2
The defendant correctly argues that his prior convictions are already incorporated into
the advisory guideline range the court used in calculating his sentence.
2
prior offenses. The court was also clearly concerned with the callous nature of the
offense of conviction and the psychological trauma his actions inflicted on his
victim.
The resulting sentence includes a 50% reduction for his cooperation, yet is
still sufficiently incapacitive to address the need to protect the public and
underscore the seriousness of this offense. It is thus clear from the sentence as
well as the court’s explanation at sentencing that the court properly considered the
factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and Carstarphen does not argue to the
contrary except to argue that the resulting sentence was “unreasonable.” The
record is to the contrary.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.
3