United States of America v. Robert J. Sucarato

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 12-1759
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERT J. SUCARATO,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-11-cr-00032-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Renee M. Bumb
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 10, 2012
BEFORE: GREENAWAY, JR., NYGAARD, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: January 28, 2013)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Robert J. Sucarato argues that his 132-month sentence, which is an
upward variance from the sentencing guildelines range, is substantively unreasonable.
To be substantively unreasonable, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the party challenging the sentence must prove its

-- 1 of 2 --

2
unreasonableness. We give great weight to the sound discretion of the District Court,
which “must apply the §3553(a) factors reasonably to the circumstances of the case.”
United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 204 (3d Cir. 2007).1
Sucarato has not met his burden of establishing that his sentence was
unreasonable. The District Court was justified in imposing the upward variance because
Sucarato showed a lack of remorse for his crimes and because of the need to deter this
type of crime in the financial services industry. Sucarato expressed no sincere remorse
for his actions and the personal devastation he has visited upon his victims. The District
Court was rightly troubled by the adequacy of the guideline sentence to deter Sucarato
from continued criminal conduct. After thoroughly addressing the factors in § 3553(a)
and Sucarato’s own statements, the District Court properly concluded that an upward
variance was appropriate.
We will therefore affirm the District Court’s sentencing order.
1 The parties do not dispute that the District Court properly calculated the guidelines
range, did not treat the guidelines as mandatory, and gave due consideration to the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Indeed, we agree that the District Court committed no
procedural error. Therefore, we will only consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed. Our review is a deferential one, inquiring only “whether the final
sentence, wherever it may lie within the permissible statutory range, was premised upon
appropriate and judicious consideration of the relevant factors.” United States v.
Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 2 --