2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-27-2014

USA v. Michael Marsico

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-3709

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. Michael Marsico" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 893.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/893
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 13-3709 and 13-3710

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL RUSSELL MARSICO,

 Appellant

_______________________

On Appeal from the District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Criminal No. 2-12-cr-00677-001

D.C. Criminal No. 2-13-cr-00238-001

(Honorable Paul S. Diamond)

______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 05, 2014

Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 27, 2014)

_________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________________

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Michael Marsico pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) pursuant to a written plea agreement. He appeals his 
2

sentence of 120 months imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, which 

was above the advisory range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We will 

affirm.1

I. 

On October 3, 2012, Marsico entered the Chase Bank located at 1071 North 

Homestead Boulevard in Homestead, Florida, and told the teller, “Give me all your 

money. This is a robbery. Don’t make me pull out my gun.” Marsico left the bank with 

$3,750. Bank employees positively identified Marsico from a photo array. Marsico’s 

wife later informed the FBI that Marsico had fled the state and told her, “I’m on the run, I 

had to rob a bank.”

Marsico fled to Pennsylvania where he committed three other robberies in 

Philadelphia. On October 13, 2012, Marsico robbed the Wells Fargo Bank at 2227 South 

Broad Street of $1,000. On October 14, 2012, he robbed the Republic Bank at 1601 

Market Street of $1,590. On October 16, 2012, he robbed the TD Bank at 121 South 

Broad Street of $2,653. During each robbery, Marsico told branch employees that he had 

a gun, but he never displayed one. After each Philadelphia robbery, bank personnel 

identified Marsico from a photograph or a photo array.

On October 18, 2012, the FBI arrested Marsico, who provided a statement 

admitting to all four crimes. On October 26, 2012, a grand jury in the Southern District 

of Florida indicted Marsico on one count of bank robbery for the Florida robbery, in 

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. In addition, we have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review 

Marsico’s sentence.
3

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On May 14, 2013, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 20, jurisdiction was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On December 17, 2012, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

filed an information charging Marsico with one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(a). On May 16, 2013, the U.S. Attorney filed a superseding information 

charging Marsico with three additional counts of bank robbery for the Philadelphia 

robberies. On May 21, 2013, Marsico pleaded guilty to all four counts.

The Presentence Investigation Report recommended a Guidelines sentence range 

of 63-78 months imprisonment on each count. The PSR noted that sentencing was not 

impacted by the plea agreement made between the parties. In addition, the PSR 

described Marsico’s extensive criminal history, which included six adult convictions and 

twenty other arrests.

At the sentencing hearing, neither party objected to the PSR. The government 

moved for an upward departure from the Guidelines range, which the court denied. 

Defense counsel argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range.

The District Court sentenced Marsico to 120 months imprisonment on each count, 

to be served concurrently. The court conducted a thorough analysis of the sentencing 

factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), concluded that the Guidelines recommendation would 

not be appropriate, and stated its intention to vary upward from the Guidelines. The court 

paid particular attention to Marsico’s long criminal record. It also focused on the need 

for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 
4

provide just punishment, provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and protect the 

public from further crimes Marsico might commit. This timely appeal followed.

II.

Marsico challenges his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), contending the 

variance above the Guidelines range is greater than necessary and should be vacated. He 

argues the District Court erred because the upward variance was both procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable. We disagree.

We follow a two-step process to review federal sentences. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, we ensure the sentencing court committed no procedural 

error, such as miscalculating or failing to calculate the Guidelines range. Id. Second, we 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Id. At both stages of our review, the party challenging the 

sentence has the burden of demonstrating unreasonableness. United States v. Tomko, 562 

F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). The abuse-of-discretion standard applies to both 

our procedural and substantive reasonableness inquiries. Id.

We determine whether the sentence is procedurally sound and falls within a broad 

range of the Guidelines. Id. The District Court must apply the § 3553(a) factors 

reasonably to the facts of the case in order for the sentence to be substantively reasonable. 

United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 204 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). A 

sentence is reasonable if “the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful 

consideration of the [statutory sentencing] factors.” United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 

197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5

“[W]e cannot presume that a sentence is unreasonable simply because it falls 

outside the advisory Guidelines range.” Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567 (internal citation 

omitted). The sentencing court must meaningfully consider the sentencing arguments 

and provide a sufficient statement to allow appellate review. United States v. Merced,

603 F.3d 203, 215-16 (3d Cir. 2010). We will not reverse a sentence as substantively 

unreasonable “unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same 

sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” Tomko, 

562 F.3d at 568.

Marsico fails to demonstrate procedural and substantive unreasonableness. First, 

he points to no grounds on which his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. Although 

Marsico claims the court failed to properly explain his sentence, the District Court 

imposed an upward variance after a thorough analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. The court 

concluded that the Guidelines range of 63-78 months per count was insufficient and an 

upward variance was warranted because of Marsico’s extensive criminal record, the 

seriousness of the offenses, and the need to promote respect for the law, provide just 

punishment, protect the public from further crimes Marsico may commit, and provide 

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

correctional treatment in the most effective manner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The 

District Court meaningfully considered the sentencing factors and provided an 

explanation sufficient for our review.

Second, Marsico cannot demonstrate his sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

Since a sentence is not unreasonable simply because it falls outside the Guidelines range, 
6

we look to the District Court’s analysis of the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The District Court analyzed the § 3553(a) factors and imposed an 

upward variance. In particular, the court considered Marsico’s long and serious criminal 

history, including four prior bank robbery convictions in 1996 that resulted in a sentence 

of 156 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Moreover, his postrelease supervision was revoked twice due to drug abuse. In light of these factors, we 

conclude that the imposition of an upward variance in this case was substantively 

reasonable.

Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s analysis of 

the § 3553(a) factors on the procedural or substantive reasonableness challenges.

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and 

sentence.