2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-10-2009 

# U S A v . S a muel W r i gh t 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 ocke t N o . 08-1894

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 va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re 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 va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . S a m ue l W

r i gh t " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1887. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/18871 NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT
No. 08-1894
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. SAMUELWR I GHT also known as "D re" Samue l Wr ight, Appellant On Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Mid dle Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia District Court No. 3-06-c r-00405- 001 District J udg e: The H onorable Edwin M. Kosik
Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A.R. 34.1(a)

J anuar y 30, 2009 Be fore : SC I RI CA, Chief Judge, AMBRO, a nd SMI TH, Circuit Judges (F iled: Febr

uary 10, 2009)
OPI NI ON

SMI TH , Circuit Judge. Appellant Samuel Wrig ht challeng es the District Court’s de cision to sentence him to a term of imprisonment conse cutive to a state court sente nce f or an unr elated c rime. WrightOn Se pte mbe r 7 , 2 00 7, the Luze rn e County Court of Common Ple a s se nte nc e d Wr ight t o 1 fiftee n-to-thirty

y ear s of imprisonment for criminal homicide. 2 pleade d guilty

to conspirac y

to distribute marijuana a

nd cra ck coc aine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and aidingand abe tting the inter fer ence with interstate commer ce by robber y in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Criminal Proce dure 11( c)( 1)(C), Wrig ht’s plea a g ree ment specifie d a sente nce of 114 months of imprisonment. On March 19, 2008, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sente nced Wright to serve the 114-month term conse cutive to, instead of c oncurr ent with, a state c ourt sentenc e for an
unre late d h omi c ide
. Th e Di str ic t Co ur t ha d ju ri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 32 31 , a nd thi s 1 Court ha s juri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 12 91 and 18 U. S.C. § 3 74 2. We w ill a ff ir m. We reviewthe District Court’s dec ision to i mpose a c onsecutive r ather than conc urre nt term of imprisonment for a n abuse of

discretion. Un ite d S

tates v . S pie rs , 82 F.3d 1274, 1277 ( 3d Cir. 2000). In consideringwhether a sente nce should run c onsecutively or conc urre ntly , a District Court must “consider, a s to eac h offe nse for which a te rm of imprisonment is being imp os e d, the fa c tor s se t f or th i n [18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a )]. ” 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 4. Wri g ht c la ims that, contra ry to the SentencingGuidelines provisions, the District Court failed to a dequate ly consider “[a]ny other c ircumstance rele vant to the deter mination of an appr opriate se ntence for the instant offe nse.” U .S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 5G1.3 cmt. 3(A)( v). Specific ally , Wright alleg es that the District Court abuse d its discretion by not addre ssing 1) Wright’s represe ntation that the state c ourt told him t hat had the D istrict Court sentence d Wright first, the state court
wo uld have imp os e d it s se nte nc e c on c ur re nt t o th e fe de ra l se nte nc e , a nd 2) Wri g ht’ s e lig ibi lity for r emoval af

ter the e nd of his prison term. Wright a lso contends that his state cour t sentence fo r t he unre late d h omi c ide wa s a “ su ff ic ie nt, but no t gre ate r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry” punis hme nt f

or hisContrary to Wright’s cla ims, W rig ht’s mere elig ibilit y for r emoval fr om the United 2 States does not rende r er

roneous the D istrict Court’s conclusion that he is a da ng er to the c o m mun i ty. 3 fede ral c rimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Ba sed on our r eadingof the re cord, w e ca nnot agree with Wright’s cla ims. W rig ht’s plea
a g re e me nt d id n ot s pe c if

y that th e te rm

of imp ri so nme nt h a d to ru

n c on c ur re ntl y . A t hi s
se nte nc inghe ari ng , Wr ight m a de the same argume nts fo r a c on c ur re nt t e rm tha t he no w a sse rt s on appea l. The District Court allowed the Gover nment to respond to these c laims, and permitted Wri g ht t o o ff

e r r e butta l argume nts . T he n, a ft e r c on sid e ri ngthe se nte nc ingfa c tor s li ste d in Section 3553(a) , the District Court indicated that Wrig ht’s criminal conduc t and the fa ct that he
was a dang er to the c ommunity war rante d a conse cutive sente nce. Acc ording ly , we be lieve that 2 the District Court adequately considere d the re levant cir cumstance s that Wright has highlighted on appea l, and whethe r the state c ourt sentenc e for the unre lated homicide wa s, by itself, sufficie nt punishment for his fede ral c rimes. Ther efor e, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discre tion here.