United States of America v. Charles E. Greene, a/k/a CHARLES GOAR Charles Green

Honorable Petrese B. Tucker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District*
of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-4022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
CHARLES E. GREENE,
a/k/a
CHARLES GOAR
Charles Green,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 05-cr-00760)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 7, 2008
Before: MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,
and TUCKER, District Judge*
(Opinion filed: February 27, 2008)
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

2
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Charles Greene, also known as Charles Goar, pled guilty to seven counts of bank
robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and
18 U.S.C. § 2. The District Court sentenced him to a 132-month term of imprisonment,
$16,508 in restitution, and a three-year term of supervised release. He appeals his
sentence. We affirm.
On appeal, Greene contends that his sentence must be vacated because it is
unreasonable. He first asserts that the District Court failed to explain how his history of
severe mental illness and substance abuse factored into its determination of an appropriate
sentence under factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In imposing a sentence, the District
Court must give “meaningful consideration” to the § 3553(a) factors, but it need not
“discuss and make findings as to each of the § 3553(a) factors if the record makes clear
the court took the factors into account in sentencing.” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d
324, 329 (3d Cir. 2006). The record reflects that the District Court considered the
defendant’s history of mental illness, stating on the record that “there’s a lot of evidence
that requires me to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant,” and noting
that there was “a pretty substantial history of some mental illness that could be
intertwined with a lot of [Greene’s] antisocial conduct.” Within this context, we are
satisfied that the District Court meaningfully considered the § 3553(a) factors in imposing
Greene’s sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Greene next argues that the District Court placed too much weight on the
Guidelines range in fashioning an appropriate sentence. If the fact that the District Court
granted a nineteen-month downward variance were not enough to satisfy us that it
understood the Guidelines as advisory, our own review of the record yields nothing to
suggest that the District Court placed impermissible weight on the Guidelines.
We thus affirm the sentence.

-- 3 of 3 --