2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-4-2012 

# U S A v . S t ephe n M a r k s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 11-2783

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . S t e p he n M a rk s " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1184. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/1184NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 11

- 2783

_______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. STEPHEN L. MARKS, Appellant

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court f

or the Midd le District of Pennsylvania ( Criminal Action No. 1

- 10

- cr - 00 275

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 9, 2012

_______________ Before: SLOVITER, VANASKIE, Circuit Judge s , and POLLAK, District Judge * (Opinion filed: April 4, 2012 )

_______________ OPINION

_______________

* Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by design ation.2 POLLAK, District Judge

. After Stephen Marks pled guilty to three charges arising out of his participation in a conspiracy to illegally distribute and dispense controlled substances, the District Court sentenced him to a fifty

- one - month term of imprisonment

. On appeal, Marks challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We will affirm. I. Because we write pri marily for the parties, who are familiar with the background of this case, we will summarize the facts and procedural history only briefly. On September 22, 2010 , a federal grand jury returned a seven

- c ount indictment against Marks. The indictment allege d that Marks, a licensed pharmacist, conspired with others to illegally distribute and dispense controlled substances via telemarketers and the internet. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Marks pl ed guilty to the first three counts of the indictment , which , r espectively, charged Marks with : 1) conspiracy to distribute controlled subst ances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; 2) causing misbranded drugs to be moved in interstate com merce in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 (k), 333(a)(2) , and 353(b)(1) ; and 3) money l aund ering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The District Court held a sent encing hearing on June 23, 2011. The probation office’s presentence investigation report rec ommended a sentence within the g uideline range of fifty

- one to sixty

- three months. Mar ks requested a variance, arguing that he should be sentenced to less than two years’ imprisonment based on the nature of his offense; his relatively minor role in the conspiracy; his age and health problems, which3 included sleep apnea, hypertension, and os teoarthritis ; and the low likelihood that he would recidivate, since he was no longer a practicing pharmacist

. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Marks = s age and physical condition, t he District Court sentenced Mark s to fifty

- one months of imprisonment (the bottom of the guideline range) and three years of supervised release. II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1 291. We review the District Court = s sentence under an abuse of dis cretion standard. United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). Where, as here, a defendant makes no procedural challenge to the District Court ’ s sentence, our inquiry is limited to the sentence = s substantive reasonableness. See id

. at 568. Marks argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because , in imposing his sentence, the District Court gave “short shrift” to his variance request and, as a result, imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to comply with t he purposes of sentencing in light of Marks’s age, health conditions, and likelihood of recidivism. “The touchstone of ‘reasonableness’ is whether the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in § 3553(a). ” United States v. Grier , 475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007 ). Here, t he record reflects that the District Court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and reason ably concluded that a fifty

- one - month sentence was necessary. In explaining it s decision not to grant Marks’s request for a variance, the Court noted that Marks had ignored a warning from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), had recr uited other people to4 participate in the illegal drug sales, and had been involved in the sal e of a significant quantity of dr ugs . The Court also explained that Marks ’ s physical health did not necessitate a reduced sentence because “ the proper institution to which he is assigned can take care of that

. ” Marks = s sentence, which fell at the bottom of the guideline range, was substantively reasonable. III. For the reasons stated above , we will affirm the sentence.