2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-28-2014

USA v. Christopher Russell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-4232

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 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. Christopher Russell" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 348.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/348
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 11-4232

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL, 

a/k/a Christopher Bishop,

 Appellant 

_____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. No. 2-09-cr-00672-002)

District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter

_____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 28, 2014

______________

Before: FUENTES and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges, and 

ROSENTHAL, District Judge.

*

(Filed: March 28, 2014)

______________

OPINION

______________

 * The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern 

District of Texas, sitting by designation.
2

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Christopher Russell pleaded guilty to charges arising from his participation in a 

fraudulent check scheme. The District Court imposed a sentence of, among other things,

136 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to an existing state sentence. 

Russell now appeals his sentence, arguing only that it was an abuse of discretion to run 

his federal sentence consecutively to his state sentence. We will affirm.

I

As we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we recite only the essential 

facts and procedural history. 

From September 2005 through November 2008, Russell participated in a bank 

fraud and identity theft conspiracy. The conspirators obtained bank account and personal 

information of bank customers from bank employees and an insurance company 

employee. They then used that information to create false identification documents and 

fraudulent checks in the names of bank customers. Russell recruited drug addicted check 

runners to cash the checks, collected the proceeds from them, and paid them with illegal 

drugs or money. 

On October 15, 2009, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Russell 

with one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; seven counts of bank fraud 

and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2; and 24 counts of aggravated 

identity theft and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A, 2. Russell 

pleaded guilty to each count. 
3

A sentencing hearing was held on November 15, 2011. At that time, Russell was 

serving an aggregate state sentence of 63 to 126 years’ imprisonment for robbery, 

aggravated assault, and burglary. The offense conduct for the state convictions occurred

between February and April 2009, and was unrelated to the federal offenses.

Russell argued that his federal sentence should run concurrently to his state

sentence since a consecutive sentence was essentially a life sentence. After considering 

the relevant statutory and guideline provisions, including each of the factors listed in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Presentence Investigation Report, counsels’ arguments, and

statements from Russell, the District Court imposed a sentence of 136 months’ 

imprisonment,1 five years of supervised release, $1,707,672 in restitution, and a special 

assessment of $3,100. The District Court further ordered that the federal sentence be 

served consecutively to the state sentence.

This appeal followed.2

II

Russell only argues that the District Court abused its discretion by directing that

his federal sentence run consecutively to, not concurrently with, his state sentence.

Russell concedes that the District Court “considered [the] appropriate [sentencing]

 1 The 136 month sentence resulted from a total offense level of 24 and a criminal 

history category of VI. While this calls for an advisory Guidelines range of 100-125 

months, Russell also faced 24-month consecutive sentences for each of the 23 counts on 

which he was convicted for aggravated identity theft, exposing him to an “an effective 

[advisory] guideline range of 124 months to 149 months,” or 652-677 months if each 24-

month sentence was imposed to run consecutively to one another. 

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

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4

factors,” Appellant Br. 6, but argues that the District Court nonetheless abused its 

discretion because, given Russell’s age and the length of the state sentence, it effectively 

imposed a life sentence. 

We review the District Court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Saintville, 218 F.3d 

246, 249 (3d Cir. 2000).

III

The statutory provision concerning consecutive and concurrent sentences

provides:

[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already 

subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run 

concurrently or consecutively, except that the terms may not run 

consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole 

objective of the attempt.

18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Additionally, “[t]he court, in determining whether the terms 

imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider, as to each 

offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in [18 

U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). Similarly, the policy statement in U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3(c) provides that, in a case “involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the 

sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially 

concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve 

a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.” 

The District Court recognized its discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent 

sentence and set forth the reasons why it found a consecutive sentence was warranted. 
5

As the District Court thoroughly explained at sentencing, Russell’s federal sentence, 

including its consecutive nature, reflected the seriousness of his offenses and his role in 

them, his “fearsome and significant” criminal history,3 Supp. App. 33, the need to protect 

the public from further crimes by him, and the need for him to be separately punished for 

his federal crimes. Because the state convictions and the federal convictions were 

entirely unrelated, Russell would avoid punishment for his federal crimes if his federal 

sentence ran concurrently with his state sentence. In these circumstances, and mindful 

that “the trial court [is] in the best position to determine the appropriate sentence in light 

of the particular circumstances of the case,” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 

(3d Cir. 2006), we hold that the District Court appropriately exercised its discretion by 

ordering Russell’s federal sentence, which was at the lower end of the guidelines range, 

to run consecutively to his state sentence.

4

 

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm.

 3 The PSR reflects at least 20 arrests, resulting in at least 16 convictions for, 

among other things, drug, robbery, and violent crimes. 

4 This is especially true in a case like this, where the sentencing judge sentenced, 

and hence was familiar with, the other conspirators.