United States of America v. Ronald Carstarphen

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 06-3136
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONALD CARSTARPHEN,
Appellant
___________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Crim. No. 05-cr-00467-02)
District Court: Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin
______________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a)
December 6, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: February 12, 2008)
__________________________
OPINION
__________________________

-- 1 of 3 --

The government initially filed a motion to dismiss Carstarphen’s appeal based upon the 1
appellate waiver that was part of his plea agreement. We are now informed that the
government has withdrawn that motion. See Appellee’s Br. at 2.
The defendant correctly argues that his prior convictions are already incorporated into 2
the advisory guideline range the court used in calculating his sentence.
2
McKee, Circuit Judge
Ronald Carstarphen appeals the sentence that was imposed following his
guilty plea arguing that it was unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we will
affirm the sentence.
I.
Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties, it is not necessary to recite
the facts of this case. Carstarphen’s challenge to his sentence relies on United1
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Carstarphen acknowledges that the district court appeared to comply with
the methodology for imposing sentences after Booker that we prescribed in United
States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006). Appellant’s Br. at 12-13. We
agree. The court significantly reduced the sentence suggested by the advisory
guideline range based upon the defendant’s cooperation and the government’s
“5K1" motion. In imposing sentence the court explained that it was concerned
with the defendant’s criminal history “from the time [he was] very young just
showing no consideration to what the law requires.” However, the court went2
beyond the mere numbers and appropriately considered his age at the time of his

-- 2 of 3 --

3
prior offenses. The court was also clearly concerned with the callous nature of the
offense of conviction and the psychological trauma his actions inflicted on his
victim.
The resulting sentence includes a 50% reduction for his cooperation, yet is
still sufficiently incapacitive to address the need to protect the public and
underscore the seriousness of this offense. It is thus clear from the sentence as
well as the court’s explanation at sentencing that the court properly considered the
factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and Carstarphen does not argue to the
contrary except to argue that the resulting sentence was “unreasonable.” The
record is to the contrary.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.

-- 3 of 3 --