§ 5G1.3(c), it should also take into account the type and length
of the undischarged sentence, the time served on the undischarged
sentence, the time likely to be served, whether the undischarged
sentence was imposed by a state or federal court, and any other
circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.3(A)). As stated
on the record at the sentencing hearing, the court considered the
relevant factors in § 3553(a) before imposing sentence. The
decision whether to make the sentence concurrent or consecutive
with another sentence is an integral part of the sentencing
process. The reasons the court gave for imposing the statutory
maximum term of imprisonment apply equally for imposing a
consecutive sentence. The crime to which Armah pleaded guilty
was a most serious one. While already in prison for a federal
offense, he committed the crime in issue which related to an
effort to murder Chief Judge Brown. The need to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct and to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant called for the sentence imposed
"to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense."
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), p.s. In sum, evaluation of the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines and commentary as well as all the relevant
factors under § 3553(a) persuaded the court that a consecutive
sentence was necessary to fashion a punishment that is sufficient
but not greater than necessary.

The motion of Armah for reconsideration of his sentence

will be denied.


States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 308 (3d Cir. 2011); see also United
States v. Wilson, Case 10-2608, 2011 WL 2669097, at *1-*2 (3d
Cir. July 8, 2011).

Section 5G1.3(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines states
that "[i]f the instant offense was committed while the defendant
was serving a term of imprisonment (including work release,
furlough, or escape status)... the sentence for the instant
offense shall be imposed consecutively to the undischarged term
of imprisonment." Section 5G1.3(c) provides that the court may
impose a sentence that is concurrent with, partially-concurrent
with, or consecutive to the undischarged sentence "to achieve a
reasonable punishment for the instant offense." Section 5G1.3(c)
only applies if § 5G1.3(a) or (b) does not apply to a particular
defendant .*

At the time Armah committed the § 1958 violation for
which he was sentenced in this case, he had pleaded guilty to the
failure to surrender charge but had not yet been sentenced for
that crime. Accordingly, we will assume without deciding that
§ 5G1.3(a) is not the applicable Sentencing Guideline reference.

Armah argues that he is eligible for and should receive
a concurrent sentence under § 5G1.3(c) of the Guidelines. In
applying that section, the court must consider the factors in

§ 3584 (which references § 3553(a)). Under the Commentary to

1. Section 5G1.3(b) of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
describes circumstances in which it recommends a defendant
receive concurrent sentences. Armah does not argue that

§ 5G1.3(b) applies to him.

-4-


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION

Vv.

ISHMAEL ARMAH NO. 11-159-2

MEMORANDUM

Bartle, J. November 14, 2011

Before the court is the motion of defendant Ishmael
Armah for reconsideration of his sentence imposed on October 19,
2011 for the crime of using a facility of interstate commerce in
the commission of a murder-for-hire. See 18 U.S.C. § 1958. He
seeks to have his sentence run concurrently rather than
consecutively to a sentence he is presently serving.

I.

Back on November 14, 2008, this court had sentenced
Ishmael Armah for a second violation of the terms of his
supervised release in a case related to bank fraud. United
States v. Armah, Case No. 05-35 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2008). The
court imposed six months of incarceration to be followed by three
years of supervised release. Id. Armah was ordered to report to
a federal corrections institution in Youngstown, Ohio on
February 17, 2009, but he failed to surrender into federal
custody as required. See Complaint dated May 28, 2009, United
States v. Armah, No. 09-744 (D.N.J.); Plea Agreement dated

Nov. 24, 2010, United States v. Armah, No. 09-744 (D.N.J.).



In September 2009, a grand jury in this district
indicted Armah under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a) (2) and (b) (1) (A) (ii) for
his failure to surrender into custody. Armah was arrested on
that charge in February 2010 and made his initial appearance on
March 5, 2010. This court ordered Armah to be detained pending
disposition of the failure to surrender charge, and he was held
at the Monmouth County Correctional Institution ("MMCI") in

Freehold, New Jersey. United States v. Armah, No. 09-744 (D.N.J.

Mar. 5, 2010).

On November 24, 2010, Armah reached a plea agreement
with the government on the failure to surrender charge and
entered a plea of guilty on January 25, 2011. This court
sentenced Armah on March 23, 2011 to eighteen months in prison on

the failure to surrender charge. See United States v. Armah, No.

09-744 (D.N.J. May 17, 2011). The court gave Armah a six-month
credit on that sentence for time he served between February and
August 2010. That credit satisfied the sentence for Armah's
violation of the terms of his supervised release in the case
related to bank fraud. Id.

During January and February 2011, while detained in
MMCI, Armah used a facility of interstate commerce with the
intent of committing a murder-for-hire, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1958. Armah's crime related to a conspiracy to murder the
Chief Judge of this court, The Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
Thus, Armah committed the crime at issue in this case after
pleading guilty to the failure to surrender charge but before he

was sentenced for that crime.


On October 19, 2011, Armah appeared before the court
for sentencing on the charge of using a telecommunications
facility in the commission of a murder-for-hire. Under the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines, the court found Armah's total
offense level to be 40 and his criminal history category as V.
The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 360 months to life,
well above the ten-year statutory maximum sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 1958(a). After considering the factors under § 3553(a),
the court imposed a ten-year term of incarceration to run
consecutively to the sentence Armah is currently serving for
failure to surrender. Armah's pending motion asks the court to
reconsider imposition of a consecutive sentence and to impose
instead a concurrent sentence.

II.

This court has discretion to impose a sentence in this
case that is concurrent with or consecutive to Armah's sentence
on the failure to surrender charge. See United States v.
Velasquez, 304 F.3d 237, 242 (3d Cir. 2002). As set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a):

If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed

on a defendant at the same time, or if a term

of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who

is already subject to an undischarged term of

imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently

or consecutively
In determining whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent
sentence, the court considers the relevant portions of the

advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines and the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b); see United