Opinion ID: 3026797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prior Convictions and the Sentence.

Text: Smith argues that the court erred in calculating the sentencing range under the guidelines because “[T]he majority of [his] prior convictions were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, thus violating Apprendi,”7 and because the sentence was unreasonable. The first part of that argument can readily be dismissed based upon our subsequent ruling in United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc).8 Smith’s challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence also lacks merit. Smith has the burden of establishing that his sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005); United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2006). In determining an appropriate sentence, the sentencing court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We assess whether the sentencing court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors to the circumstances of the case was reasonable. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 330. A sentence within the guidelines range is more likely to be considered “reasonable” than one outside the range, id. at 331, although a guidelines sentence is not per se reasonable. Here, the District Court expressly considered the factors in Section 3553(a) as set 7 Appellant’s Br. at ii. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 8 Smith candidly admits that the argument is made merely to preserve the record given the “rapidly- evolving sentencing law. . ..” Appellant’s Br. at 9. 7 forth in Booker. App. 79. The court noted Smith’s prior violent criminal history, including two prior convictions for robberies committed with a firearm, his history of violating the conditions of parole and probation, and his having been out of prison for only six months when he committed the instant offense. Moreover, and perhaps not surprisingly given his criminal history, Smith expressed no remorse for his criminal actions. The District Court could find no mitigating circumstances that might suggest a lesser sentence of imprisonment prison was warranted; neither can we.