Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01837/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01837-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Hakim Harding
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 19-1837

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KEITH HAKIM HARDING,

Appellant

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 4:16-cr-00019-011)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) 

On January 30, 2020

Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 31, 2020)

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

While on state parole for attempted murder, Keith Harding pleaded guilty to a federal 

drug-trafficking conspiracy. Knowing that Pennsylvania would likely revoke his parole 

and recommit him for the remainder of his sentence, the District Court imposed a federal 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding 

precedent.

Case: 19-1837 Document: 44 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
2

prison sentence consecutive to any state parole-revocation sentence. Harding argues that 

the District Court should have made his federal sentence concurrent to the anticipated state 

sentence. But as he admits, district courts have the discretion to run convicted defendants’ 

sentences consecutively to anticipated state sentences. And Harding’s criminal history 

more than justified the Court’s decision to do that here. So we will affirm. 

* * * * *

In 2004, Harding was convicted of attempted murder. After a man bumped into Harding

while walking down the street, Harding gave his friend a submachine gun and urged him 

to shoot the man. So the friend did, spraying a Philadelphia street with bullets. Fortunately, 

the man survived. After a bench trial, a Pennsylvania state judge convicted Harding and 

sentenced him to ten to twenty years in prison. Ten years later, Pennsylvania paroled him.

But under state law, Pennsylvania could revoke Harding’s parole and return him to prison

for the remainder of his sentence if he committed another crime. See 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

§6138(a)(1) (providing that a parolee found guilty of another crime “may at the discretion 

of the [parole] board be recommitted as a parole violator”).

While on parole, Harding soon became a leader in a widespread drug-trafficking network that stretched from Philadelphia to southern New Jersey and north-central Pennsylvania. He and his coconspirators used cell phones to connect customers with sellers and 

send mass text messages to alert customers when more heroin was available. After his 

arrest, Harding pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute.

At sentencing, Harding sought a lower prison sentence on two grounds. First, he argued 

that he was neither an organizer nor a leader of the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a). 

Case: 19-1837 Document: 44 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
3

The District Court overruled this objection, and Harding does not appeal that decision. The 

Court then calculated his Sentencing Guidelines range as 151 to 188 months in prison.

Second, Harding asked the Court to make his sentence concurrent with his anticipated 

state parole-revocation sentence. The District Court rejected that request too. It sentenced 

him to 151 months in prison, to run “consecutive to the state parole revocation sentences 

imposed, or to be imposed,” by the Pennsylvania courts. App. 40. It did so because of 

Harding’s “significant criminal history,” including the severity of his conviction for attempted murder. App. 22.

Harding now appeals, challenging the District Court’s decision to run his federal sentence consecutively to his state sentence. He argues that imposing the federal sentence on 

top of his anticipated state sentence will make it “extreme [in the] aggregate” and thus 

substantively unreasonable. Appellant’s Br. 12. We review for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114, 119 (3d Cir. 2014). We find none for three reasons.

First, as Harding concedes, the District Court had the “discretion to order that [his federal] sentence run consecutively to his anticipated state sentence in the probation revocation proceeding.” Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 244 (2012); see Appellant’s Br. 11. 

That discretion is broad, as long as the District Court considers the ordinary sentencingreasonableness factors to ensure that the anticipated aggregate sentence will “achieve a 

reasonable incremental punishment” and “avoid unwarranted disparity.” U.S.S.G. §5G1.3 

cmt. n.4(A) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§3553(a), 3584).

Second, the District Court properly applied those criteria to the facts. It noted Harding’s 

“significant criminal history,” emphasizing his attempted-murder conviction. App. 22. And 

Case: 19-1837 Document: 44 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
4

it found the sentence necessary to deter crimes and incapacitate Harding. That finding 

makes sense too, especially because Harding committed this crime not long after his release 

from state prison and while still on parole. Plus, the District Court offset some of the harshness of a consecutive sentence by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines 

range.

Finally, even if the District Court had run its sentence concurrently, state law would 

require Harding to finish his federal sentence first. Under Pennsylvania law, a parolee “sentenced to serve a new term of total confinement by a Federal court ... shall serve the balance 

of the original [paroled] term before serving the new term.” 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

§6138(a)(5.1) (emphasis added). So even if the District Court had imposed a concurrent 

sentence, it would have done Harding no good. Either way, he would not be able to start 

serving his anticipated state sentence until after he finishes his federal sentence.

* * * * *

The District Court had the discretion to make Harding’s federal sentence consecutive 

to his anticipated state sentence. And in exercising that discretion, it properly considered 

Harding’s serious criminal record. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we will affirm.

Case: 19-1837 Document: 44 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2020