United States of America v. Peter N. Georgacarakos

The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States*
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 06-2089
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,
Appellant.
_______________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(No. 02-cr-00034-2)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 22, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges*
(Filed: July 16, 2007)
__________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________

-- 1 of 4 --

2
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Because we write for the benefit of the parties alone, we include only those facts
necessary for the disposition of this appeal.
In February 2004, a jury returned a guilty verdict, convicting appellant Peter N.
Georgacarakos of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of a fellow prison inmate.
Prior to trial, Georgacarakos’s co-defendant, Marek Kowaalski, entered a plea of guilty to
voluntary manslaughter and testified against Georgacarakos at trial. Georgacarakos was
sentenced to life in prison and he appealed. On June 21, 2005, we affirmed the judgment
of conviction, but remanded to the District Court for re-sentencing due in part to the
intervening decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), as well as to address Georgacarakos’s argument that he should not have
been sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. United States v.
Georgacarakos, 138 Fed. Appx. 407, 410-11 (3d Cir. 2005).
On remand, the District Court reduced Georgacarakos’s sentence from life
imprisonment to 360 months, a sentence at the very minimum of the guideline range, after
taking into consideration the noted disparity between his sentence and that of Kowaalski.
Now, on appeal for the second time, Georgacarakos challenges rulings made by the
District Court with respect to certain motions filed by Georgacarakos in anticipation of
the re-sentencing, but Georgacarakos concedes that he does not challenge the 360-month
sentence imposed. Letter from Ronald C. Travis, Esq. to the United States Court of

-- 2 of 4 --

The Order of Judgment states in pertinent part: “On consideration whereof, it is1
now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of conviction be and
hereby is affirmed and the judgment of sentence be and hereby is vacated and this matter
is remanded for resentencing. All of the above in accordance with the Opinion of the
Court.” (App. 8a-9a.)
3
Appeals for the Third Circuit (August 22, 2006) (“Pursuant to a voicemail message I
received on August 21 , an inquiry was made as to whether we were challenging thest
sentence which was imposed by the court. The appeal taken challenges the rulings the
court made with respect to the motions filed in conjunction with the resentencing, not the
sentence imposed itself.”).
Specifically, Georgacarakos argues that the Order of Judgment of June 21, 2005
remanding his case for re-sentencing placed no limitations on the District Court. Thus,1
the District Court was free to consider and decide any motions impacting the advisory
guidelines sentencing range. In that regard, in November 2005, Georgacarakos filed a
pro se motion to reduce his crime of conviction from second-degree murder to voluntary
manslaughter. The District Court denied that motion on November 8, 2005.
Georgacarakos then filed a pro se motion to reconsider, which was denied on November
28, 2005. In January 2006, through counsel, Georgacarakos filed another motion, this
time seeking to vacate the second-degree murder conviction and to dismiss with prejudice
the indictment on the basis of discriminatory prosecution. Georgacarakos also filed a
motion seeking discovery vis à vis the selective prosecution motion. These motions were
denied by the District Court on February 28, 2006. Finally, Georgacarakos filed a motion

-- 3 of 4 --

4
seeking disclosure of investigative reports. The District Court likewise denied this
motion. Essentially, the District Court denied the various motions because they were
beyond the scope of the ordered remand.
We wholeheartedly disagree with Georgacarakos’s characterization of the remand
order as unlimited in scope. It clearly was not. As stated in the Opinion of the Court that
accompanied the order, we expressly remanded for reconsideration of his sentence under
the sentencing guidelines made advisory pursuant to Booker and to consider whether §
4A1.3 was applicable to Georgacarakos. At the sentencing hearing, the Court and
counsel discussed the career offender objection. Given the opportunity to add to the
record, counsel admittedly had nothing more persuasive in terms of arguments to present
to the Court and the Court sustained its prior ruling, upholding Georgacarakos’s status as
a career offender. Georgacarakos does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
The District Court then heard from the parties, including Georgacarakos, regarding
the imposition of a new sentence. Based on the now-advisory guidelines, taking into
consideration the 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the disparity between the
sentence Kowaalski received compared to Georgacarakos’s previous sentence, the
District Court reduced Georgacarakos’s sentence from life imprisonment to 360 months.
Georgacarakos does not challenge the reasonableness of this sentence on appeal.
We find no error with any of the District Court’s rulings upon remand.
Accordingly, we will affirm.

-- 4 of 4 --