2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-19-2012

USA v. John Gallagher, Jr.

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2023

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. John Gallagher, Jr." (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 31.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/31
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-2023

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOHN JAMES GALLAGHER, JR.,

Appellant

______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. Action No. 4:09-cr-00415-004)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Submitted: December 13, 2012

______________

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., GREENBERG, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: December 19, 2012)

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Appellant John James Gallagher, Jr. (“Gallagher”) appeals the District Court’s 
2

March 26, 2012 Judgment and sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment. For the reasons 

that follow, we will affirm.

I.

Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we recount only the 

essential facts. In January 2006, Gallagher moved from Hazelton, Pennsylvania to

Arizona. After his move, Gallagher maintained contact with Arthur Schade (“Schade”), a 

friend and methamphetamine user, who resided in Pennsylvania. At some point after the 

move, Schade asked Gallagher about the availability of methamphetamine in Arizona. 

BACKGROUND

After he moved to Arizona, Gallagher became acquainted with several Mexican 

nationals, including an individual named “Ricardo.” Ricardo offered to sell Gallagher 

drugs. Gallagher, recalling Schade’s request, arranged to buy methamphetamine from 

Ricardo, which he then shipped to Schade in Pennsylvania. Gallagher continued to ship 

methamphetamine from Arizona to Pennsylvania in multi-pound quantities until 

December 2009. Gallagher profited from these transactions.

Gallagher was arrested in December 2009. When approached by the investigating 

officers, Gallagher immediately agreed to cooperate. Gallagher described the unlawful 

arrangement by which he obtained methamphetamine from Ricardo and other Mexican 

nationals and sold it to customers in Pennsylvania, including Schade. After proffering 

information to the authorities, Gallagher was released to continue his cooperation.

Gallagher worked with law enforcement to set up a controlled buy resulting in the 

arrest of several co-conspirators in both Arizona and Pennsylvania. After this initial 
3

transaction, Gallagher continued to work with authorities. Between January 2010 and 

January 2012, Gallagher met with law enforcement officers and prosecutors at least four 

times for proffer sessions and to review wiretap recordings, exhibits, and other evidence 

in anticipation of his testimony at trial. Gallagher also testified before a Grand Jury. 

Although the co-conspirators ultimately pled guilty, Gallagher was prepared to testify and 

the Government acknowledged his value.

Gallagher also ably assisted state and local law enforcement in a number of other 

narcotics investigations in Pennsylvania. Specifically, he made controlled phone calls to 

set up meetings with potential drug sellers, wore body wire recorders to those meetings, 

made ten controlled purchases of cocaine, and regularly provided the authorities with 

information regarding drug activity in the area. Gallagher’s cooperation resulted in 

numerous arrests and convictions. By all accounts, Gallagher was a reliable informant, 

despite being threatened for being an informant on more than one occasion. 

After Gallagher pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess 

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, the Government filed a 

Motion for a Downward Departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The motion sought a 

five-level departure from a total offense level of 31 to 26. 

At the sentencing hearing on March 26, 2012, the District Court granted the 

Government’s Motion for Downward Departure; thus, with a total offense level of 26 and 

a criminal history category of III, the resulting sentencing range was 78 to 97 months. 

Gallagher sought an additional four-level departure pursuant to 5K1.1, which he believed 
4

was more indicative of his extensive cooperation. The District Court denied his request. 

Gallagher then sought a downward variance, on the basis of his cooperation, background, 

low likelihood of recidivism, and the fact that he posed no danger to the public. 

The District Court acknowledged Gallagher’s efforts in cooperating; but, in 

looking at the other § 3553(a) factors, opined that the seriousness of the underlying 

offense, the danger of methamphetamine to the public, and Gallagher’s criminal history

did not warrant a variance. The District Court sentenced Gallagher to 78 months’ 

imprisonment. Gallagher timely appealed.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 

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

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the District Court’s 

sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard. Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 364 (2007) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005)); United 

States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). We first consider whether 

the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error, such as failing to [properly 

calculate] the Guidelines range . . . [or] failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors . . . .” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “If there is no procedural error, the second 

stage of our review is for substantive reasonableness, and we will affirm the sentence 

unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that 
5

particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” United States v. Wright, 

642 F.3d 148, 152 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

Gallagher’s arguments appear to be two-fold.

ANALYSIS

1

A.

 First, Gallagher argues that the 

District Court abused its discretion by refusing to downwardly depart more than five 

levels in view of his sterling cooperation over a two-year period. Second, Gallagher 

argues that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a downward 

variance for the same reasons. Both arguments are without merit.

We lack jurisdiction to review the extent of a district court’s downward departure 

for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 

151-52 (3d Cir. 2001). We only require that, “in determining the extent of a downward 

departure for substantial assistance, a sentencing judge must not only conduct a 

qualitative, fact-specific analysis but also must expressly indicate the recognition of 

[U.S.S.G.] § 5K1.1’s factors.” Id. at 152. The record plainly establishes that the District 

Court recognized its ability to depart downwardly under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and carefully 

reviewed the underlying facts of Gallagher’s substantial assistance. Because the District 

Court here adhered to the evaluative process established in Torres, the extent of the 

District Court’s downward departure under § 5K1.1 is not reviewable. 

Downward Departure

 1 Although Gallagher claims to present only “one issue” for our review, (Appellant 

Br. 14), he alternatively refers to both downward departures and downward variances in 

his argument. We will address both arguments.
6

B.

Gallagher also argues that his “level of cooperation over a period of twenty[-]

seven months is so above and beyond the usual that it deserved consideration for further 

downward variance.” (Appellant Br. 20.) This argument is without merit. In explaining 

a sentence, a district court is obligated to “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court 

that [it had] considered the parties’ arguments and [had] a reasoned basis for exercising 

[its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 351. At the sentencing 

hearing, the District Court meaningfully considered the § 3553(a) factors, including 

addressing Gallagher’s substantial level of cooperation, criminal history, potential 

recidivism, and the seriousness of the underlying crime. The District Court also granted 

the Government’s motion for a considerable departure. Thus, the record demonstrates 

that the District Court did, in fact, consider Gallagher’s extensive cooperative. It was not 

an abuse of discretion for the District Court to decline to vary further. Gallagher’s 

sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable.

Downward Variance

IV.

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the Judgment and sentence of the 

District Court.

CONCLUSION