Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RESTANI, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. Charles MCCORMICK, Appellant.
    No. 07-4776.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 21, 2008.
    Opinion Filed: Dec. 17, 2008.
    George S. Leone, Esq., Caroline A. Sadlowski, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Appellee.
    Maggie F. Moy, Esq., Office Of Federal Public Defender, Camden, NJ, for Appellant.
    Before: BARRY and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

RESTANI, Judge.

In this appeal, Charles McCormick challenges his sentence of 33 months for a three-count wire fraud conviction as unreasonable. We will affirm the sentence.

The facts of the underlying crime are well-known to the parties and we will not repeat them here. The sentence is within the range calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and that calculation is not challenged. McCormick also concedes that the court identified mitigating facts as it recounted the factors it was required to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). McCormick’s argument, rather, is that that consideration was formulaic and that the court placed undo emphasis on his criminal history and the seriousness of the offense.

Where the court has so clearly considered the statutory factors and cited to the specific evidence of record for potential mitigation, it is difficult to conclude the court did not follow proper procedure. That the court was moved by prior criminal history and the seriousness of the offense, nonetheless, to select a sentence at the high end of the guideline range does not establish an abuse of discretion. We conclude that the sentence was a reasonable one and will affirm the District Court’s Judgment and Conviction Order.