Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02347/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rahiem J. Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 15-2347

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RAHIEM J. BROOKS,

Appellant 

______________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. 14-cr-00334-1)

District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh

__________________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R.

March 24, 2016 

___________________________

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 19, 2016)

_____________

OPINION*

_____________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents the question of whether the District Court committed 

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2347 Document: 003112267231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
2

procedural error during sentencing by failing to acknowledge and respond to one of 

Defendant-Appellant Raheim J. Brooks’s arguments in support of a lower sentence. 

Because the District Court’s sentencing statement was sufficient to meet plain-error 

review, we will affirm. 

I. Background

Brooks was indicted on, and eventually pled guilty to, seven counts of access 

device fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2), (b)(1) and 2. 

In 2013, the Amtrak Police Department received information that numerous train tickets 

were being purchased with stolen credit card information. Investigators eventually traced 

these purchases to Brooks. In addition to the train ticket purchases, Brooks used the 

credit cards to obtain other goods and services. Brooks pleaded guilty to all counts 

charged in the indictment in open court.

Following Brooks’s guilty plea, the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), 

which used the 2014 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”),

set Brooks’s total offense level at 13 and classified his criminal history at VI. 

Accordingly, the Guidelines sentence for Brooks’s conviction included 33 to 41 months’ 

imprisonment. 

In a sentencing memorandum, Brooks presented mitigating arguments in support 

of a downward variance. The memorandum emphasized Brooks’s abusive upbringing 

and his efforts to rehabilitate. Brooks argued that a below-Guidelines range sentence was 

appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that a within-Guidelines range sentence 

Case: 15-2347 Document: 003112267231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
3

would be “excessive and unwarranted to achieve the statutory objective.” J.A. 34. 

During sentencing, Brooks reiterated his arguments for a downward variance based on 

his upbringing. 

The District Court sentenced Brooks to a within-Guidelines sentence range of 38 

months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release for all counts, 

and $43,036.67 in restitution. Before announcing the sentence, the Court noted the

nature of the crime, Brooks’s criminal history, and the need to promote deterrence. The 

Court’s statements did not include any reference to Brooks’s upbringing. After 

announcing the sentence, the District Court asked: “Counsel, is there anything else that 

requires attention?” J.A. 82. Brooks’s counsel replied, “No, Your Honor.” J.A. 82. 

Brooks timely appealed. He argues that the District Court committed procedural 

error by failing to meaningfully consider his personal characteristics, specifically his 

upbringing, which he believes supported a downward variance. 

II. Standard of Review1

Brooks did not preserve the instant issue for appeal, and thus we review for plain 

error. United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc). An 

error is plain if it, inter alia, “affected the outcome of the District Court proceedings.” Id. 

at 259 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

III. Analysis

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Case: 15-2347 Document: 003112267231 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
4

We will affirm as Brooks does not show that the error of which he complains 

affected the outcome of the proceedings. During the sentencing colloquy, the District 

Court explained that the nature and circumstances of the offense supported a withinGuidelines range sentence, stating that the crime displayed a “level of self-indulgence,”

noting that the instant offense reflected Brooks’s “repeated violations of the law,” and 

stressing the “troubling” nature of Brooks’s criminal history. J.A. 79–80. It went on to 

observe that “the Probation Department pointed out that indeed one might even raise [the 

sentence] higher than it is.” J.A. 80. The Court also expressed its “concern[] about the 

fact that the crimes repeat.” J.A. 80. Taking these factors into consideration, the Court 

told Brooks: “a guideline sentence is warranted and, candidly, sir, toward the higher 

range of the guidelines.” J.A. 80. 

Thus, the Court’s sentencing statements evinced its belief that the nature and 

circumstances of the offense and the extent of Brooks’s criminal history strongly 

militated against a lower sentence. Given these statements, we cannot conclude that the 

District Court would have imposed a different sentence if it had specifically addressed 

Brooks’s arguments about his upbringing.2 

IV. Conclusion

 

2 Brooks argues that there is a reasonable probability that the court would have 

imposed a lower sentence, because the instant conviction was not “egregious,” and his 

abusive childhood was “unquestionably mitigating.” Reply Br. 7–8. The record 

suggests, however, that the District Court had great concerns regarding the seriousness of 

the conviction, especially in the context of Brooks’s criminal history. Thus, given the 

District Court’s statements in support of the sentence it imposed, we cannot conclude that 

Case: 15-2347 Document: 003112267231 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
5

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction. 

 

there is a reasonable probability that the Court would have imposed a lower sentence. 

Case: 15-2347 Document: 003112267231 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/19/2016