United States v. Kenneth Hampton
17-3561
3rd Cir.Jun 18, 2019Background
- From 2007–2014 Kenneth Hampton led a Philadelphia scheme to fraudulently obtain, encumber, mortgage, and sell houses using forged deeds and straw purchasers while he was incarcerated for another federal offense.
- Co-conspirators included his son Terrell, brother Ellis, fiancée Roxanne Mason, and an unindicted participant, Myra Walker.
- Hampton communicated directions from prison via email and telephone; Walker acted as a straw purchaser and identified properties.
- A jury convicted Hampton of conspiracy, wire fraud/attempted wire fraud (17 counts), and two counts of aggravated identity theft.
- At sentencing the District Court applied a four-level aggravating-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) and imposed 200 months’ imprisonment (including a mandatory consecutive 24 months for identity theft).
- Hampton appealed, challenging (1) the § 3B1.1(a) leader/organizer enhancement and (2) the substantive reasonableness of his sentence as disparate from co-defendant Mason’s 24‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hampton) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1(a) four-level leader/organizer enhancement was proper | Hampton: He was not an organizer/leader and the conspiracy did not involve ≥5 participants | Court/Govt: Hampton directed, controlled, recruited participants and an unindicted coconspirator (Walker) participated; five participants existed | Enhancement affirmed — no plain or clear error |
| Whether District Court plainly erred in finding Hampton an organizer/leader | Hampton: Failed to object at sentencing, so review for plain error; he disputes leader status | District Court: Made factual findings of decision-making, control, planning, and recruitment | No plain error — factual findings supported leader status |
| Whether conspiracy involved five or more "participants" under § 3B1.1(a) | Hampton: Conspiracy lacked the required number of participants | Govt/District Court: Participant need not be convicted; Walker and family members qualified as participants | No clear error — five participants found |
| Whether 200‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable due to disparity with Mason | Hampton: Sentence is unfairly disparate compared to Mason’s 24‑month term | Court/Govt: §3553(a)(6) aims at national, not co‑defendant, uniformity; defendants not similarly situated (leader vs. participant; trial vs. plea); District Court made individualized §3553 findings | Sentence affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hampton, [citation="444 F. App'x 583"] (3d Cir. 2011) (prior opinion addressing Hampton’s earlier counterfeiting conviction)
- United States v. Huynh, 884 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2018) (standard for § 3B1.1 leader/organizer review)
- United States v. Flores‑Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc) (plain‑error review when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (requiring review of totality of circumstances in substantive sentencing review)
- United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2006) (§ 3553(a)(6) interpreted to promote national uniformity; co‑defendant disparity limited)