2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-29-2011

USA v. Kory Barham

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1057

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. Kory Barham" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 994.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/994
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 09-1057

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KORY BARHAM, a/k/a Cutty Blue, a/k/a Cuttlas Y. Blue

 Kory Barham, Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-05-cr-00443-010)

District Judge: The Honorable Yvette Kane

__________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 25, 2011

BEFORE: BARRY, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 29, 2011)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Kory Barham pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport individuals for purposes of

prostitution, coercing and enticing them to travel to engage in prostitution, and interstate 
2

travel with intent to distribute proceeds of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 

2421, 2422(a), and 1952(a). He also pleaded guilty to a specific count of interstate travel 

for purposes of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and (2). 

Quoting his brief, Barham raises the following questions on appeal:

1. Was appellant’s guideline range mistakenly calculated 

because it was based on the treatment of victims as minors?

2. Is remand within the Court’s discretion because the 

sentence was excessive?

Appellant’s Brief, p. 4. We will affirm. 

Barham asserts that the District Court mistakenly applied U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 2G1.3 (2007) because he did not personally victimize any minors. 

Barham failed to preserve this issue and we review it for plain error. United States v. 

Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 153 (3d Cir. 2002). 1

 1 Barham moved for permission not to attend a presentence evidentiary hearing, plainly 

stating in the motion that he was withdrawing his objections to the Report. 

 Evidence before the District Court 

contradicts Barham’s argument, showing that he prostituted a seventeen year-old girl. He 

also ignores the relevance of conduct of his co-conspirators who prostituted over forty 

minors. Given Barham’s admitted interaction with his co-conspirators, and the routine 

recruitment of minors that was pervasive in the conspiracy, there is no question that this 

conduct is attributable to him. Moreover, Barham’s sentence of 108 months was 

calculated from the statutory maximums that resulted from his plea agreement. We 

conclude from all of this that the District Court did not err. 
3

Barham also appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Yet, in its 

consideration of Barham’s sentence, the District Court took into account the factors 

enumerated under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and assessed the reasonableness of the plea 

bargain sentence, weighing his role in the conspiracy with the gravity of the offense. We 

conclude that his sentence of 108 months is eminently reasonable and will affirm the 

judgment of sentence of the District Court.