United States of America v. Corey Gregory

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3989
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
COREY GREGORY,
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00685-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 1, 2009
BEFORE: McKEE, CHAGARES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 27, 2009)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Corey Gregory pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals the sentence, arguing that it was

-- 1 of 3 --

2
substantively unreasonable. We review the District Court’s sentence for substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of
the circumstances. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm.
Gregory argues on appeal that the District Court committed procedural error
in failing to consider and adequately address his argument that § 2K2.1 should be given
little weight. He argues that this Guidelines section was improperly formulated and that
the District Court failed to give adequate consideration to this argument. We find this
argument meritless. The record conclusively demonstrates that the District Court
considered and ultimately rejected Gregory’s argument. The District Court characterized
Gregory’s argument as alleging that § 2K2.1 had, over time, escalated in severity without
a sufficient basis for that increase. The District Judge, after considering the argument,
specifically determined that “[t]here’s nothing about the so-called increases, in this
Court’s judgment, that required intervention.” The District Court clearly considered and
rejected Gregory’s argument and we discern no procedural error in the District Court’s
response to Gregory’s argument.
Since the District Court did not err procedurally, we will affirm a sentence
as long as it falls within the broad range of possible sentences that can be considered
reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors. A within-Guidelines sentence is more likely
to be a reasonable one. As we have recently stated, “if the district court's sentence is
procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have

-- 2 of 3 --

3
imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court
provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). In this
case, the District Court concluded that an 80-month term of imprisonment was
reasonable, and we agree. We will affirm the sentence.

-- 3 of 3 --