2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-9-2011

USA v. Leon Henry

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2896

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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. Leon Henry" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1281.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1281
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-2896

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LEON HENRY, JR., 

 Appellant

_______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. Action No. 2:00-cr-00667-PBT-4)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 28, 2011

_______________

Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed May 9, 2011)

_______________

OPINION

________________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge

Appellant Leon Henry, Jr. (“Henry”) appeals the District Court’s January 8, 2009 

Order revoking his probation and sentencing him to twenty-four months in prison, 

running consecutive to an existing ninety-six month federal prison sentence. Henry now 
2

files this timely appeal. Henry argues that the sentence must be vacated because it is both 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He also argues that the District Court 

improperly failed to issue a written statement of reasons for the above Guidelines 

sentence imposed. Neither of these arguments is persuasive.

For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s Order.

I. BACKGROUND

We write primarily for the benefit of the parties and shall recount only the 

essential facts. Leon Henry, Jr. was employed by the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s 

Office in Pennsylvania. On December 19, 2000, a grand jury returned a superseding

indictment charging Henry with offenses related to items stolen from deceased persons, 

including credit cards, checks, and credit information.1 Henry and other former 

employees were also charged with the use, and attempted use, of decedents’ information 

and checks to obtain money and merchandise. Henry was specifically charged with one 

count of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2),

and one count of possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j).

Henry pled guilty to both charges, pursuant to a cooperation plea agreement with 

the government. Before sentencing, the government filed a motion for a downward 

departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. On April 1, 2002, the sentencing court granted 

the motion and sentenced Henry to four years of probation.

 

1

Fourteen other employees of the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office were also 

indicted.
3

On February 1, 2006, two months before Henry’s probation term was scheduled to 

end, the Probation Office filed a violation petition against Henry alleging that, while on 

probation, he was charged with committing new crimes (that case is Cr. No. 06-33).

2

 A 

hearing on the violation petition was held January 8, 2009. The government asked the 

District Court to impose a sentence above the advisory Guidelines range and to order that 

sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed under Cr. No. 06-33. The District 

Court found that Henry had violated the terms of his probation and granted the 

government’s requests for the above guidelines range sentence. The District Court 

imposed a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment, to run consecutive to the 96-month 

sentence imposed in Cr. No. 06-33. Henry filed a timely appeal.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231

and 3565. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

 

2 On January 23, 2006, Henry was charged in a federal indictment with conspiracy to 

make false statements to a federal firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 

two counts of making false statements to a firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

924(a)(1)(A). The grand jury later returned a second superseding indictment charging 

Henry with the same conspiracy offense, along with one count of making a false 

statement to a firearms dealer, one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of conspiracy to commit armed bank 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On June 1, 2007, Henry was convicted of 

conspiracy to make false statements and making false statements to a firearms dealer, and 

possession of a firearm. He was acquitted of the bank robbery conspiracy charge. As a 

result, Henry was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment by the District Court on 

November 25, 2008 and was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $28,665.54 

and a special assessment of $200.
4

A district court’s sentencing procedure is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). On abuse of discretion review, the Court of 

Appeals gives due deference to a district court’s sentencing decision. Id. at 52. District 

courts have discretion when sentencing and appellate review is limited to determining 

whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

District courts must follow a three-step process in determining an appropriate 

sentence. United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). Courts must: (1) 

correctly calculate a defendant’s sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; (2)

allow the parties to argue their positions relative to what they believe is an appropriate 

sentence; and (3) consider those arguments in light of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. The 

sentencing courts are statutorily required to state their reasons for imposing a sentence, 

although a comprehensive, detailed opinion is not required. Id. The sentencing court 

must provide an explanation that is sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that the district 

court considered the parties’ argument and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own 

decision-making authority. Id. 

The Third Circuit’s responsibility on appellate review of a criminal sentence “is 

limited yet important: we are to ensure that a substantively reasonable sentence has been 

imposed in a procedurally fair way.” United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 195 (3d 

Cir. 2008). However, “[i]t is not the role of the appellate court to substitute its judgment 

for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence,” except 
5

to the extent specifically directed by statute. Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 

205 (1992) (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983)). 

An appellate court’s reasonableness review of a sentence has both procedural and 

substantive components. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009). The 

procedural component requires the appellate court to ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error, including: (1) failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range; (2) treating the Guidelines 

as mandatory; (3) failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and (4) selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence and to include an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range. Id. 

If the district court's sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no 

reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular 

defendant for the reasons the district court provided. Id. at 568.

The substantive component requires the appellate court to take into account the 

totality of the circumstances. United States v. Lychock, 578 F.3d 214, 218 (3d Cir. 

2009). Although the appellate court considers the extent of any variance from the 

advisory Guidelines range, it must also give due deference to the district court’s decision 

that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. Id. The 

substantive reasonableness of each sentence must be evaluated on its own terms, based on 

the reasons that the district court provided, in light of the particular facts and 

circumstances of that case. Tomko, 562 F.3d at 573. In examining the totality of the 
6

circumstances, we determine whether a reasonable court would have applied the same 

sentence as the District Court. 

The reasonableness standard has been elucidated in both United States v. Booker, 

543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) and United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329-32 (3d Cir. 

2006). We have held that this standard also applies to sentences imposed for violations 

of supervised release. United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir. 2007).

IV. ANALYSIS

Henry argues that his sentence was procedurally and substantively infirm because 

the District Court failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and 

inadequately evaluated the one factor that it did consider. Henry also argues that the 

District Court improperly failed to issue a written statement of reasons for the aboveGuidelines sentence imposed.

Procedural Error

We are guided by the requirement that sentencing courts must give meaningful 

consideration to all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).3See United States v. Olhovsky, 

 

3

 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed - - (A) 

to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide 

just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant: and (D) to provide the 

defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other 

correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; 

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for - - (A) the applicable 

category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the 

guidelines . . . ; (5) any pertinent policy statement . . . issued by the Sentencing 
7

562 F.3d 530, 546 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d 

Cir. 2006)). A district court’s “failure to consider the § 3553(a) factors” can create a 

procedurally unreasonable sentence. United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 195 (3d 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

Henry does not claim that his sentencing Guidelines determination was the result 

of a miscalculation or that it was based on clearly erroneous facts. He does argue, 

however, that the District Court did not consider all of the §3553(a) factors and did not 

adequately evaluate the one factor it considered. We disagree. It is clear from the record 

that the District Court considered the 3553(a) factors. In the transcript from the violation 

hearing, the District Court stated:

Now the Court understands and appreciates the guidelines

range is 12 – 18 months and I understand and appreciate that 

the Guidelines range is discretionary and not mandatory. . .

[T]he Court will impose a sentence which I think takes into 

consideration the seriousness of the events and it takes into 

consideration the importance of punishment for separate 

offenses and that would be the violation of my probation. It 

takes into consideration the need to punish. It takes into 

consideration the need to impress upon Mr. Henry the 

importance of respect for the law. 

(Supp. App. 39).

 

Commission . . . [that] is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; (6) the need to 

avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have 

been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any 

victims of the offense.
8

These statements clearly indicate that the District Court not only took the §3553(a) 

factors into consideration at sentencing, but also recognized the advisory nature of those 

factors. Although the District Court did not separately list each of the §3553(a) factors, 

we find that the record reflects consideration of them. We have held that sentencing 

courts need not discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors “if the record makes clear the court 

took the factors into account in sentencing.” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 

(3d Cir. 2006). Further, the District Court held a detailed hearing and provided Henry 

an opportunity to be heard by the Court.

Henry next contends that the District Court failed to state a reason for the sentence 

imposed. The District Court did not issue a separate opinion. Nor did it provide 

information on the reason for its variance in its judgment. However, the District Court 

does provide, in the record, its reasons for imposing the 24-month sentence, stating that 

Henry had been placed on probation four years ago, but committed various offenses 

during his probation. We have held that the district court is only required to state on the 

record its general reasons under §3553(a) for imposing a more stringent sentence. See

United States v. Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 893 (3d Cir. 1991). The District Court 

pointed out that the crimes for which Henry was convicted were “extremely serious 

actions . . .” (Supp. App. 38), and that it would impose a sentence it thought would, inter 

alia, take the seriousness of Henry’s crimes into consideration. The District Court also 

stated that it would not impose a concurrent sentence instead of a consecutive sentence 
9

because such a sentence would not take into consideration or recognize that Henry’s 

actions were in violation of the Court’s probation. 

We find that the District Court did not commit procedural error. The §3553(a) 

factors were considered in sentencing and provided an explanation for the sentence the 

Court imposed upon Henry. As such, the sentence was procedurally reasonable.

Substantive Reasonableness

We have held that courts must state adequate reasons for a sentence on the record, 

so that we can engage in meaningful appellate review. United States v. Goff, 501 F.3d 

250, 256 (3d Cir. 2007). In Tomko, we stated that “the substantive reasonableness of 

each sentence must be evaluated on its own terms, based on the reasons that the district 

court provided, in light of the particular facts and circumstances of that case.” 562 F.3d 

at 573. 

The substantive component requires the appellate court to take into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Id. In looking at the totality of the circumstances, we 

determine whether a reasonable court would have applied the same sentence as the 

district court in this case. We have determined from the District Court’s statements in 

Henry’s violation hearing that it took all of the facts of Henry’s case into consideration, 

including the fact that Henry committed serious crimes while on probation. The District 

Court stated that Henry’s crimes were committed “clearly in the beginning of [his] 

probationary period and clearly during the period of the probation.” (Supp. App. 30.) It 

is apparent from the record that the District Court considered the particular facts and 
10

circumstances of Henry’s case and, as mentioned, provided its reasons for the sentence 

imposed. 

We find that the District Court’s sentence was substantively reasonable. The 

District Court’s decision to upwardly depart from the sentencing Guidelines was based on 

the totality of the circumstances analysis and was sound. The Government recognizes 

that the District Court failed to state the reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence in a 

written order, but we agree with the Government that because the District Court stated 

those reasons in open court where its reasons are available on the record, Henry suffered 

no prejudice.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons provided, the above Guidelines range sentence that the District 

Court meted out was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Therefore, we will 

affirm the District Court’s order.