2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-30-2011

USA v. Michael Byrd

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4686

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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 Byrd" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 144.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/144
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 10-4686

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS BYRD, a/k/a STAX, 

 MICHAEL DOUGLAS BYRD, 

 Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 3-10-cr-00004-001)

District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 18, 2011

BEFORE: RENDELL, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 30, 2011)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

Michael Douglas Byrd challenges the 120-month prison sentence the District 

Court imposed following his guilty plea to distributing .94 grams of cocaine base, in 
2

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Byrd was sentenced as a career 

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. This advisory Guidelines range was 151-188 months.

On appeal, Byrd argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that 

the District Court abused its discretion by not varying downward to the non-career 

offender Guideline range, given the small amount of drugs involved in the crime. We 

will affirm.

Here, Byrd challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. In 

reviewing such a challenge, “we must give due deference to the district court‟s 

determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the sentence.” United States 

v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Our review is “highly deferential,” United States v. Bungar, 478 

F.3d 540, 543 (3d Cir. 2007); we must affirm “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. “The fact that the appellate court 

might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient 

to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the District 

Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Byrd to a below-Guidelines range term of 

120-months. If a sentence “falls within the broad range of possible sentences that can be 

considered reasonable in light of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, we must affirm.” 

United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir. 2008). “Ultimately, „[t]he touchstone 

of reasonableness is whether the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful 
3

consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).‟” Tomko, 562 F.3d at 

568 (quoting United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007)). Here, the record 

shows that the District Court did in fact consider the factors that Byrd believes entitle him 

to a lesser sentence. Immediately before announcing the sentence, the District Court 

specifically considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as Byrd‟s 

family history, criminal history, and lack of financial resources. Nonetheless, the District 

Court found that a 120-month term of incarceration was necessary, and we find the 

District Court's conclusion to be reasonable. The District Court thoughtfully considered 

the evidence before it and decided that a sentence in the middle of the Guideline range 

was appropriate based on its weighing of multiple factors. It concluded that a sentence of 

120-months imprisonment was justified by the seriousness of the offense, would promote 

respect for the law, would provide just punishment and deterrence, and would protect the 

public. The District Court‟s conclusion is reasonable, and we will therefore affirm the 

sentence.1

 

1

The Government‟s submission is peppered with suggestions that the defendant‟s brief is 

sub-par, accusing its author of „desultory advocacy‟ and of failing to appropriately 

characterize her argument as one of procedural or substantive unreasonableness. The 

U.S. Attorney‟s commentary was not only unnecessary but inaccurate. We found the 

Public Defender‟s brief to set out the arguments on appeal cogently and succinctly.