2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-8-2009

USA v. Norman Thomas

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-4540

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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. Norman Thomas" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 494.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/494
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-4540

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

NORMAN LEE THOMAS,

Appellant

____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. No. 1-07-cr-00192-003)

District Judge: Sylvia H. Rambo

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 30, 2009

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 7, 2009)

____________

OPINION 

 

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and

cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). In determining the applicable sentencing
2

guideline, the District Court found that defendant had distributed cocaine base in excess

of 4.5 kilograms. Although the pre-sentence investigation report resulted in a Guideline

range of 262 to 327 months’ incarceration, that range was lowered to 240 months, the

statutory maximum. Responding to the government’s motion to a downward departure

and in consideration of the defendant’s ongoing and substantial cooperation, the Court

imposed a sentence of 139 months imprisonment and a three-year period of supervised

release.

Defendant contends that, in finding the amount of cocaine involved, the

Court erred by using evidence that he supplied in a proffer. The government asserts that

it had independent sources for determining the amount of illegal drugs, including

information provided by confidential informants before the defendant’s arrest, as well as

statements defendant made to the police before entering into the plea agreement. We

have carefully reviewed the sentencing proceedings, including the transcript of the

hearing, and conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that the quantity of

illegal drugs was calculated based on evidence independent of the proffer and was,

therefore, properly used in determining the sentence. See United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d

556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“this Court . . . review[s] factual findings relevant to

the Guidelines for clear error and . . . exercise[s] plenary review over a district court’s

interpretation of the Guidelines”); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b)(1) (“The provisions of

subsection (a) [stating that self-incriminating information provided pursuant to plea
3

agreement cannot be used in determining guideline range] shall not be applied to restrict

the use of information [ ] known to the government prior to entering into the cooperation

agreement”) (emphasis added). 

We also conclude that the District Court gave “meaningful consideration”

to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and applied them reasonably to the circumstances of this

case. See United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 203-04 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that a

sentence is procedurally reasonable where the district court demonstrates “meaningful

consideration of the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” and substantively reasonable

where it applies those factors “reasonably to the circumstances of the case”).

Accordingly, we will affirm the Judgment of the District Court.