United States of America v. Dabney English

* Hon. Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey,
sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3371
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DABNEY ENGLISH,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D. C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00386)
District Judge: Hon. Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 30, 2006
Before: SMITH and COWEN, Circuit Judges, and
THOMPSON *, District Judge
(Filed: April 20, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
THOMPSON*, District Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Dabney English, a previously convicted felon, was arrested after an altercation at
his sister’s house, during which he possessed a .25 caliber Raven Arms pistol. He pled
guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g), and subsequently was sentenced to 60 months in prison. English now appeals
from that sentence, arguing that it was unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), because the district court did not sufficiently articulate its consideration
of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons provided
below, we will affirm. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural
history, which we include only as necessary to explain our decision.
I. JURISDICTION
We have jurisdiction to review sentences for reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. §
3742(a)(1). See United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 2006) (“We believe
an unreasonable sentence is ‘imposed in violation of law’ under 18 U.S.C. §
3742(a)(1).”).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Because English did not object to the district court’s failure to sufficiently
articulate the reasons for its sentence, we review that issue for plain error. United States
v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 164-65 (3d Cir. 2005) (using the plain error analysis when the
defendant did not raise the Booker issue before the District Court). In order to establish
plain error, the appellant must demonstrate that (1) it was error, (2) the error was plain,

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
and (3) it affected substantial rights of the defendant. United States v. Evans, 155 F.3d
245, 251 (3d Cir. 1998).
B. The § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors
When reviewing a district court’s sentence, we must be satisfied that it considered
the relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Cooper, 437 F.3d at
329. While a court is not required to discuss or make findings as to each of the § 3553(a)
factors, the record must demonstrate that it gave “meaningful consideration” to the factors
and took them into account in sentencing. Id. Similarly, while a court need not discuss
arguments that are “clearly without merit,” it must address any “ground of recognized
legal merit” properly raised at sentencing by either the defendant or the prosecution,
“provided [the legal ground] has a factual basis.” Id. (quoting United States v.
Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005)).
Our review of the record in the instant case shows that the district court addressed
its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and English’s arguments. Specifically, the court
found that:
The sentence imposed satisfies the purposes set forth in Title 18 of the United
States Code, Section 3553(a), including the necessity of deterrence and just
punishment, promotion of respect for the law, protection of the public,
avoidance of unwanted disparities, and assurance of correctional treatment for
the defendant, and reflects this court’s full consideration of all factors relevant
to the sentencing determination, including the nature and seriousness of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, and the advisory range and policies prescribed by the sentencing
commission.
(App. 61.)

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Further, the district court discussed English’s request to serve the sentence
concurrently with a separate sentence he had received from an earlier weapons charge and
conviction. In denying that request, the court stated: “I reviewed English’s
correspondence to me before I imposed that sentence, and so it was my intent that the
sentence run consecutively. I did not overlook those submissions, I should state for the
record, but that sentence will be consecutive.” (App. 62.) Cooper does not require an
express articulation of each factor under § 3553(a). The record need only show the
district court’s meaningful consideration of the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. Cooper,
437 F.3d at 329. We are satisfied that these statements, and the record as a whole,
demonstrate the district court’s meaningful consideration of both the § 3553(a) factors
and the issues raised by English’s counsel.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of sentence.

-- 4 of 4 --