2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-25-2011 

# U S A v . M a r c u s S mith

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-1800

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . M a r c us S mith " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1587. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1587

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 10

- 1800

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. MARCUS SMITH ,

A ppellant

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 04

- CR

- 651

- 002 District Judge: The Honorable Stewart Dalzell

_____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 24, 2011 Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 25, 2011 )

_____________________ OPINION

_____________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge

. Marcus Smith was convicted of several criminal offenses arising out of an armed robbery. He was sentence d to 50 months of imprisonment, the result of a generous varia nce from a sentencing guide line range of 150 to 157 months. He was also give n a five year term of supervised release. Shortly after his release from prison, Smith violated

### 2

the terms of his supervised release . That violation led to an eight month term of imprisonment imposed in September of 2007. He was released from prison for the second time in May of 2008. In mid

- August of 2008, Smith’s probation officer filed a second petition for revocation of his supervised release

. 1 

### The second petition set for th the pertinent details of Smith’s violations and identified the applicable sentencing guideline range . At the revocation hearing in March of 2010, Smith did not dispute the allegations in the second petition. Smith’s guideline sentenc ing range was only 5 to 11 months of imprisonment . The statutory maximum period of imprisonment upon revocation , however, was 52 months. T he District Court imposed a sentence of 22 months imprisonment , to be followed by a 30 month term of supervised release. During the s entencing proceeding, the Court recounted Smith’s checkered record on supervision and emphasized that it amounted to a “flagrant violation for the second time of you r supervised release

. . . that needs to be punished to vindicate the authority of the Cour t.” The Court further noted that he could impose a longer period of incarceration, but that he was persuaded by defense counsel to give Smith “one last chance.” Smith appealed, contending that the District Court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable be cause the Court failed to calculate the applicable sentencing guideline
range and to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2 

### In United States v.

1 

### The second revocation petition cited several violations, including positive drug tests , a failure to report to his prob ation officer, and a failure to attend group counseling sessions. It also noted that Smith had abscond ed from the authorities.

2 

### The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3583(e)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

### 3

Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007), we concluded that a sentence imposed upon revocation of s upervised release is subject to review , consistent with United States v. Booker , for reasonableness in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 542 (citing United State s v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 261

- 62 (2005)). After reviewing the

re cord before us, including the thoughtful comments of Judge Dalzell during the M arch 11, 2010 revocation hearing, we conclude that Smith’s argument lacks merit . The District Court was aware of the applicable sentencing guideline range, fully considered th e § 3553(a) factors , and explained the reasons for its above

- guidelines sentence

. We will affirm the order of the District Court.