United States v. Kimberly Spellman
686 F. App'x 113
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Kimberly Spellman, affiliated with the Derry Drug Trafficking Organization, drove the leader and used her residence to store and distribute heroin and to store guns/ammunition near Atlantic City public housing.
- Arrested after a two-year FBI/Atlantic City Police investigation; pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin within 1,000 feet of public housing (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 860, 846).
- Sentencing Guidelines range calculated at 78–97 months. Plea agreement stipulated the Government would not seek more than 24 months.
- At sentencing Spellman asked for the 12-month mandatory minimum plus one day; the Government honored the plea agreement and recommended 24 months.
- The District Court imposed a 60-month sentence (a downward variance from the Guidelines but above the parties’ recommendations), citing lack of remorse and § 3553(a) factors.
- Spellman appealed, arguing (1) procedural error for inadequate consideration of § 3553(a) and the Government’s recommendation and (2) that the 60-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court procedurally erred by failing to meaningfully consider § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ sentencing recommendations | Spellman: Court did not adequately consider § 3553(a) or the Government’s agreed 24-month recommendation | United States: Court did consider the parties’ variance requests and § 3553(a); it was not bound by plea agreement sentencing recommendation | No procedural error; appeal reviewed for plain error but record shows meaningful, articulated consideration of § 3553(a) and variance requests, so no plain error found |
| Whether the 60-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Spellman: 60 months is unreasonable given plea agreement recommendation and defendant’s circumstances | United States: Sentence was a lawful variance within the court’s discretion and well below the Guidelines range; record shows reasoned § 3553(a) consideration | No abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable because record reflects rational and meaningful § 3553(a) consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc) (preservation and plain-error standard for sentencing objections)
- United States v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2006) (plain-error test elements)
- United States v. Powell, 269 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2001) (district court not bound by plea-agreement sentencing recommendations)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive-reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (reasonableness requires record showing rational and meaningful consideration of § 3553(a))