United States v. Shaliek Stroman
677 F. App'x 746
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In 2014 Stroman was arrested after police found heroin on him and he had conducted two controlled heroin sales; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 846).
- The PSR treated him as a career offender, producing total offense level 29 and criminal-history category VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
- Stroman moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b) and sought a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); the Government opposed both requests.
- At sentencing the district court said it considered the § 3553(a) factors, focused on Stroman’s extensive criminal history and recidivism, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 151 months plus three years supervised release.
- Defense did not object at sentencing to the court’s alleged failure to address certain mitigation (work history, character, post-indictment rehabilitation); on appeal Stroman argued the court treated the Guidelines as mandatory and failed to meaningfully consider § 3553(a).
- The court of appeals reviewed for plain error on procedural claims (defendant’s objection not preserved) and for abuse of discretion/substantive reasonableness on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory / failed to consider § 3553(a) meaningfully | Stroman: court acted as if Guidelines were mandatory and did not give meaningful consideration to § 3553(a) mitigation | Government/District Court: court explicitly called Guidelines "advisory," reviewed PSR, considered motions and § 3553(a) factors | Court: Procedurally reasonable — record shows Guidelines treated as advisory and § 3553(a) considered |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable given mitigating factors | Stroman: district court should have given greater weight to work history, character, post-indictment rehabilitation and granted a variance | Government: sentence at low end of range reflected consideration of § 3553(a) and defendant’s criminal history; within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable | Court: Substantively reasonable — district court gave meaningful consideration and imposed a sentence at the low end of the range |
| Whether the district court’s failure to explicitly calculate the Guidelines range was prejudicial error | Stroman: did not raise this on appeal; argued elsewhere that sentencing process was deficient | Government: parties agreed on PSR calculations; no contemporaneous objection and no claim of miscalculation on appeal | Court (note): District court omitted an explicit calculation contrary to Gunter but error was not prejudicial given parties’ agreement; affirming judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Guidelines are advisory post-Booker)
- United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three-step sentencing procedural framework)
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (plain-error review for unpreserved procedural sentencing objections)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)
- United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007) (‘‘highly deferential’’ review of § 3553(a) application)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (district court must provide explanation showing meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors)