Court Opinion

ID: 9404621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 17:00:39.420445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.823508
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _______________

                                      No. 22-2410
                                    _______________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                             THOMAS GEORGE STANKO,
                                                 Appellant
                                 _______________

                    On appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                              (D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00334-001)
                    Chief District Judge: Honorable Mark R. Hornak
                                    _______________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                  on June 21, 2023

               Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                                  (Filed: June 23, 2023)
                                    _______________

                                       OPINION*
                                    _______________
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

    Thomas Stanko had a long criminal history, including felonies. Yet police found seven-

teen guns in his house and storage unit. He pleaded guilty to illegally possessing them

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 87 months in prison. On appeal, he

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
argues that (1) the District Court should have excluded his guns as the fruits of an uncon-

stitutional search and (2) his sentence was unreasonable. Both arguments fail.

   We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and the sentence’s reason-

ableness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 564–65, 567–68 (3d

Cir. 2009) (en banc).

   First, Stanko cannot challenge the search that found his guns because he pleaded guilty

unconditionally. United States v. Porter, 933 F.3d 226, 229 (3d Cir. 2019).

   Second, Stanko’s sentence was reasonable. Procedurally, the District Court “reviewed

the complete file” in the case and considered the sentencing factors thoroughly. JA 109.

Stanko says the court “minimized” his mitigating evidence, particularly that he was abused

as a child. Appellant’s Br. 14. But the court expressly acknowledged “the significance of

[Stanko’s] childhood abuse and trauma.” JA 114. Yet it decided that Stanko’s upbringing

and other evidence did not “mitigate all of the serious actions [he] engaged in as an adult.”

JA 152. This careful balancing is exactly what district courts must do at sentencing. The

court did not err.

   Substantively, Stanko’s sentence was within his Guidelines range. So we may presume

that it is reasonable. United States v. Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114, 119–20 (3d Cir. 2014).

Stanko has not rebutted that presumption. He simply reargues that the District Court down-

played mitigating evidence. But that argument fails for the same reason as before. And he

has not explained why “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sen-

tence.” Tomko, 562 F.3d at 568. So we will affirm.

                                             2