Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03557/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03557-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Strausbaugh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

BLD-194 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3557

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

REBECCA STRAUSBAUGH,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1:11-cr-00096-002)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 

10.6

March 24, 2016

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 1, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Rebecca Strausbaugh, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District 

Court’s order denying her motion requesting a modification or reduction of sentence 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3557 Document: 003112251232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2016
2

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because the appeal does not present a substantial 

question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

In 2011, following a bench trial, Strausbaugh was convicted of three counts of 

child sexual exploitation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). She was sentenced 

to 15 years’ imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. 

Strausbaugh appealed her judgment, and this Court affirmed. United States v. 

Strausbaugh, 534 F. App’x 175 (3d Cir. 2013) (non-precedential). Strausbaugh then filed 

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the District Court denied. Strausbaugh 

subsequently filed an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) seeking authorization 

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which this Court denied. In re: 

Strausbaugh, No. 15-2388 (order entered on June 17, 2015).

Strausbaugh then filed a “Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence 

Under 3582(c)(2), based upon the Supervised Release Statute, 18 USC 3563(b).” In her 

motion, Strausbaugh challenged the legality of how the District Court imposed the 

conditions of her supervised release. Specifically, Strausbaugh argued that the District 

Court failed to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as required by 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(c), and failed to articulate the reasons for the sentence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(c). The District Court denied the motion, explaining that § 3582(c)(2) 

applies only to defendants who have been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on 

a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o),” which was not the basis of Strausbaugh’s motion.

Case: 15-3557 Document: 003112251232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2016
3

Strausbaugh appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We 

may summarily affirm the District Court’s ruling if there is no substantial question 

presented on appeal. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

The District Court did not err in denying Strausbaugh’s motion. Pursuant to 

§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant may move for modification of her sentence only if a sentencing 

range has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 994(o). Strausbaugh, however, challenged the legality of the District Court’s 

original setting of the terms and conditions of her supervised release. Section 3582(c)(2) 

is not the appropriate vehicle through which to raise those challenges. Strausbaugh had 

an opportunity to raise those challenges either on direct appeal or in her § 2255 motion 

and may not now use § 3582 to gain review over issues which should have been raised in 

earlier proceedings.2

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

 

1 The order denying Strausbaugh’s motion to reduce or modify her sentence was entered 

on September 29, 2015. She had 14 days, or until October 13, 2015, to file a notice of 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Espinosa-Talamantes, 319 F.3d 

1245, 1246 (10th Cir. 2003). Strausbaugh, however, did not file her notice of appeal until 

October 16, 2015. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Nevertheless, we 

decline to dismiss this appeal as untimely because the time requirements of Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 4(b) are not jurisdictional, see Gov’t of the V.I. v. Martinez, 620 

F.3d 321, 328-29 (3d Cir. 2010), and the Government has not raised the timeliness issue.

2 The District Court also correctly concluded that any attempt to proceed under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) would be time-barred and that, absent certification 

from this Court, it would lack jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 

Case: 15-3557 Document: 003112251232 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/01/2016