United States v. Jonathan Cobb
695 F. App'x 650
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jonathan Cobb appealed resentencing to 180 months after earlier ineffective-assistance findings and relief proceedings under Lafler v. Cooper.
- At the relief hearing, the government represented it would have filed an enhanced penalty 21 U.S.C. § 851 Notice (an "851 Notice") even if Cobb had pled guilty; Cobb’s counsel conceded there was no direct evidence to contradict that representation.
- At resentencing the district court again imposed a 78% upward variance from the guidelines, citing seriousness of the offense, deterrence, and Cobb’s extensive criminal record.
- Cobb argued the district court failed to neutralize the taint of ineffective assistance at resentencing, improperly relied on trial evidence, and gave insufficient consideration to mitigation presented at resentencing.
- The Third Circuit reviewed procedural claims for plain error (unobjected-to) and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Cobb's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to neutralize ineffective-assistance taint under Lafler | Court relied on government’s claim that an 851 Notice would have been filed; court ignored circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise | District court accepted gov’t representation after defense conceded no direct contradictory evidence | No plain error; district court permissibly accepted gov’t position and need not revisit at resentencing |
| Whether reimposing same 78% variance was improper | Original justifications (including trial evidence) didn’t apply on resentencing; variance therefore inappropriate | Variance based on unchanged factors: seriousness, deterrence, and criminal history; Lafler does not require ignoring trial evidence | No abuse of discretion; variance reasonably reimposed |
| Whether district court failed to consider resentencing arguments and § 3553(a) factors | Court gave "no meaningful consideration" to mitigation and evidence presented at resentencing | Court need not address every argument or make explicit findings on each § 3553(a) factor; court stated it gave "full credit" and specifically referenced multiple § 3553(a) factors | No procedural defect; court sufficiently considered factors and reduced sentence from 288 to 180 months |
| Whether the 180-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Cobb: reduced sentence still excessive given resentencing context | Court: district courts have broad sentencing latitude; 108-month reduction is meaningful and justified | Not substantively unreasonable under abuse-of-discretion standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard for plain-error review in sentencing)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error doctrine framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review and sentencing discretion)
- Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 524 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (remedying ineffective assistance affecting plea negotiations)
- United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006) (no requirement to make specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (sentence substantively unreasonable only if no reasonable court would impose it)
- United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (district courts’ broad sentencing latitude)