Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "AMBRO, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. James KING a/k/a Mel James King, Appellant.
    No. 14-2011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 17, 2014.
    Opinion filed: Dec. 11, 2014.
    
      Todd K. Hinkley, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leo A. Latella, Esq., Office of Federal Public Defender, Scranton, PA, Frederick W. Ulrich, Esq., Office of Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

In March and April of 2013 the Luzerne County Drug Task Force arranged two controlled purchases of .25 and .24 grams of heroin from James King. He pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). In exchange, the Government agreed to recommend a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.

The District Court calculated King’s base offense level as 12 with a criminal history category of VI. It also provided a reduction of the base level for acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Usually, the relevant' Guidelines range would be 24 to 30 months, but King has 28 previous convictions, including three controlled substance offenses and two crimes of violence. He therefore qualifies as a career criminal, which increases the relevant range to 151 to 188 months. Id. § 4Bl.l(b). The District Court sentenced him to 151 months, the bottom of the range.

On appeal, King does not contend that the District Court committed procedural error at sentencing. Instead, he argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Court failed to give appropriate weight to King’s troubled personal background, the low quantity of heroin involved in the case, and the Government’s recommendation for incarceration of 120 months. The District Court addressed these factors at the sentencing hearing and weighed them against King’s long criminal history, his age, his continued recidivism despite shorter prison sentences, and his risk to public safety. J.A. 69-72. It then imposed a sentence at the bottom of the relevant Guidelines range. While sentences within the Guidelines range are not presumptively reasonable, United States v. Merced, 603 E.3d 203, 213 n. 5 (3d. Cir.2010), we are convinced that King’s prison term adequately accounts for his criminal history. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Thus we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing King’s sentence. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir.2009) (en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      . Though King’s real name is Male Dixon, we use the name in the case caption to avoid confusion.