United States of America v. Negii Coffee Ii

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NEGII COFFEE II,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 05-cr-00277)
District Judge: The Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 22, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: September 30, 2008)
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Negii Coffee II challenges as unreasonable a sentence of 100 months imposed
upon him after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We will affirm.

-- 1 of 5 --

1 Because Coffee only challenges his sentence, we need not discuss the facts
surrounding the crime to which he pled guilty.
2
Coffee pled guilty on August 23, 2006 to one count of being a felon (he was
previously convicted in Pennsylvania state court of possessing cocaine with intent to
distribute) in possession of a firearm, namely, a loaded Ruger nine-millimeter handgun.1
He argued in his sentencing memoranda that the probation department erred in the pre-
sentence investigation report by including “numerous” petty offenses, which he
characterized as “more or less fines,” when it calculated his criminal history. He also
argued for a downward departure on the ground that the mother of three of his nine
children has serious medical issues and that, as a result, his assistance is needed to take
care of the children and their mother.
The District Judge held a sentencing hearing on May 3, 2007. Following
argument, the Judge found that the probation department’s assignment of four criminal
history points for Coffee’s prior convictions for failing to file earned income tax returns,
criminal mischief/harassment and theft/simple assault/conspiracy, was warranted. After
granting Coffee a three-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility, the Judge
adopted the findings of the pre-sentence investigation report and its offense level of 25,
criminal history category of V, and sentencing guidelines range of 100 to 125 months.
Because the statutory maximum sentence for the crime to which Coffee pled guilty was
ten years, however, the guidelines range became 100 to 120 months.
Coffee called three witnesses in support of his motion for a downward departure

-- 2 of 5 --

2 Coffee does not argue on appeal that his motion for a downward departure was
wrongly denied, and the argument section of his brief on appeal totals less than three
pages.
3
—the mother of the three children, a clinical social worker, and a clinical therapist. The
mother testified that she needed Coffee to help her conduct day-to-day activities and to
assist in rearing their children. The two professionals concurred, testifying that Coffee
played a positive role in the children’s and their mother’s lives. After considering this
testimony, the Judge denied the motion for a downward departure and sentenced Coffee
to a term of imprisonment of 100 months.
Coffee argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the District Judge
“includ[ed] petty offenses in calculating the sentence” and because the Judge “did not
fully consider the defendant’s family hardships and medical conditions when determining
his sentence.” (Appellant’s Br. 7.)2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). We review sentences for procedural error and for substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Hoffecker, 530
F.3d 137, 196 (3d Cir. 2008). If there was no procedural error and if the sentence “falls
within the broad range of possible sentences that can be considered reasonable in light of
the § 3553(a) factors, we must affirm.” United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 217 (3d Cir.
2008).
Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c), a defendant’s criminal history computation shall
include one point for each of certain misdemeanor and petty offenses resulting in
sentences of less than 60 days, up to a maximum of four points. Section 4A1.2(c) lists

-- 3 of 5 --

4
generally the types of offenses that shall be included and those that shall not be included
under section 4A1.1(c). Coffee argued at the sentencing hearing that the convictions that
were included in the computation “are not reflective of the matter before the court,” that
“[t]hey’re summary,” and that to include them “would not be reflective of the nature of
his crimes.” (App. at 57.) The District Judge did not err in determining that those
convictions were properly included. The fact that the convictions were of a different
nature than the crime to which Coffee pled guilty, and that they were “summary” in
nature, is not violative of any requirement in section 4A1.1(c). Moreover, the Judge
noted that the four points “put the defendant at the top of category 5, and that even if two
of the three points were excluded he would still be in [criminal history] category 5.” (Id.
at 83.) Indeed, Coffee had been convicted of an additional three crimes that could have
been assigned points under section 4A1.1(c) but were not because he had already been
assigned the maximum allowable number of points—four.
Coffee’s second argument—that his sentence is unreasonable because the District
Judge failed to account for his extraordinary family circumstances—also fails. After
hearing evidence from three witnesses who testified that Coffee was needed in the lives of
three of his children and their mother, the Judge stated that he was “not unsympathetic or
unmindful of the delicate nature of the problems facing this family unit, but I don’t
believe that Mr. Coffee has been providing the sustenance and assistance that you
[counsel] suggest he has provided or would like to provide.” (Id. at 78.) Indeed, Coffee
had been in prison for the preceding two years and had been a fugitive before then.

-- 4 of 5 --

3 The pre-sentence investigation report reflects, and Coffee does not dispute, that he
has nine children by six women.
5
Moreover, as the Judge found, “[i]t appears as though the defendant has four additional
children since the children that he had with [the testifying mother]. So clearly he has not
been a stay at home father” despite the arguments that had been made. (Id. at 76.) 3
The District Judge committed no procedural error and the sentence imposed was
substantively reasonable. We will affirm the judgment of sentence.

-- 5 of 5 --