2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-27-2009 

# U SA v . C orey Gregory P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3989

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C or ey Gr e g ory " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 384. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/384NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3989

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CO RE Y GR E GOR Y,

A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 2- 07- cr - 00685- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2009 B E F O R E : M cK E E , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.

C o reyG reg o ryp lead ed g u il tyto b eing a f elon in p o sses sion o f a firearm pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e appe al s t he s ent ence , ar gui ng t hati tw as2

s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he t ot al i t yof t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. G r egoryar gues on appea l t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err or i n fai l i ng t o cons i derand ade quat el yaddr es s hi s ar gum entt hat§ 2K 2. 1 s houl d be gi ven l i t t l e w ei ght . H e ar gues t hatt hi s G ui del i nes s ect i on w as i m pr oper l yfor m ul at ed and that th e D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to g iv e a d e q u a te c o n sid e ra tio n to th is a rg u m e n t. W e f in d th is arg u m en t m erit less. T h e re co rd c o n clus ivelyd em o n str ates tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt cons i der ed and ul t i m at el yr ej ect ed G r egory ’ s ar gum ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tchar act er i zed G r egory ’ s ar gum entas al l egi ng t hat§ 2K 2. 1 had, overt i m e, es cal at ed i n s ever i t yw i t hout a su f f icie n t b a sis f

o r th a t in c re a se . T h e D istric t Ju d g e , af ter c o n sid e rin g th e a rg u m e n t, sp e c if ica llyd e ter m in e d th a t “[ t]h e re ’s n o th in g a b o u t th e so -c a lled in c re a se s, in th is C our t ’ s j udgm ent , t hatr equi r ed i nt ervent i on. ” The D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l ycons i der ed and rejected G reg o ry ’s arg u m en t and w e d iscern n o p roc ed u ral error in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s re sp o n se to G re g o ry ’s a rg u m e n t.

Si nce the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterrpr ocedur al l y , w e w i l l aff i r m a s ent ence as l ong as i tfal l s w i t hi n t he br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s t hatcan be cons i der ed re a so n a b le in lig h t o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs. A w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e is m o re lik e ly to b e a re a so n a b le o n e . A s w e h a v e re c e n tlysta ted , “if th e d istric t co u rt' s s e n ten c e is pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e w i l l aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have3

im p o sed the s am e se n tenc e o n that p arti cu lar de fe n d an t fo r th e re aso n s the d istri ct co u rt pr ovi ded. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ). In th is cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatan 80- m ont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entw as r eas onabl e, and w e agr ee. W e w i l l aff i r m t he s ent ence .