United States of America v. Douglas Griggs

Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of*
International Trade, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 07-4719
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DOUGLAS GRIGGS,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00202)
District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 21, 2008
________________
Before: BARRY and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge*
(Opinion Filed: December 15, 2008)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
RESTANI, Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

The defendant requested the extra day in order to qualify for good-time credit.1
2
This is an appeal of a sentence imposed following a violation of supervised
release. We will affirm the sentence.
On November 26, 2007, Douglas Griggs pled guilty to two violations of the
conditions of his supervised release – leaving the judicial district without permission and
failure to pay the fine imposed at sentencing for the original conviction for being a felon
in possession of a firearm. After a period of two weeks to consider the record, the
District Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day and one
year of supervised release, a sentence which exceeded the range specified in the United
States Sentencing Guidelines by one day.1
We will not recite here all the facts concerning Mr. Griggs’s original crime or the
circumstances of the supervised release because they are well-known to the parties and
were well-known to the sentencing court. Griggs does not challenge the Guidelines
calculation. Rather, he claims the sentence was procedurally and substantively defective
because the Court failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
claim is based upon the Court’s failure to discuss the factors specifically and in detail.
Failure to cite to each § 3553(a) factor, however, is not a ground for reversal. United
States v. Charles, 467 F.3d 828, 831 (3d Cir. 2006). It is clear to us from the record,
however, that the Court was aware of all of the facts which related to the sentencing
factors that the Court considered, and that the Court arrived at a reasonable sentence,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
though not the non-custodial one defendant sought. It is also clear from the record and
the words used by the Court that weighing large in the formulation of the sentence was
the purpose of sanctioning defendant for his breach of trust. This is an appropriate
consideration. See United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 853 (3d Cir. 2006).
We perceive no substantive or procedural error in the sentence imposed. The
District Court’s Judgment and Conviction Order will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --