2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-27-2009

USA v. Corey Gregory

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3989

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. Corey Gregory" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 384.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/384
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3989

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

COREY GREGORY,

 Appellant.

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00685-001)

District Judge: The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 1, 2009

BEFORE: McKEE, CHAGARES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 27, 2009)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Corey Gregory pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals the sentence, arguing that it was
2

substantively unreasonable. We review the District Court’s sentence for substantive

reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of

the circumstances. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm.

Gregory argues on appeal that the District Court committed procedural error

in failing to consider and adequately address his argument that § 2K2.1 should be given

little weight. He argues that this Guidelines section was improperly formulated and that

the District Court failed to give adequate consideration to this argument. We find this

argument meritless. The record conclusively demonstrates that the District Court

considered and ultimately rejected Gregory’s argument. The District Court characterized

Gregory’s argument as alleging that § 2K2.1 had, over time, escalated in severity without

a sufficient basis for that increase. The District Judge, after considering the argument,

specifically determined that “[t]here’s nothing about the so-called increases, in this

Court’s judgment, that required intervention.” The District Court clearly considered and

rejected Gregory’s argument and we discern no procedural error in the District Court’s

response to Gregory’s argument.

Since the District Court did not err procedurally, we will affirm a sentence

as long as it falls within the broad range of possible sentences that can be considered

reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors. A within-Guidelines sentence is more likely

to be a reasonable one. As we have recently stated, “if the district court's sentence is

procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have
3

imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court

provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). In this

case, the District Court concluded that an 80-month term of imprisonment was

reasonable, and we agree. We will affirm the sentence.