United States of America v. Daniel Wheeler

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 25-1317
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL WHEELER,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3:21-cr-00352-001)
District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 14, 2026
Before: SHWARTZ, MASCOTT, and McKEE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 5, 2026)
______________
OPINION*
______________
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Daniel Wheeler challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his
168-month sentence for distributing heroin and fentanyl resulting in death, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the
District Court’s judgment.1
We review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of Wheeler’s sentence
for abuse of discretion.2 When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first consider
whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”3 Second, we
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, “tak[ing] into account
the totality of the circumstances.”4 “[I]f the district court’s sentence is procedurally
1 Although we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review
“allege[d] sentencing errors based upon a mistake of law or an incorrect application of
the Guidelines . . . , we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of” discretionary downward
departures. United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 2001). Thus, to the extent
Wheeler seeks review of the amount of the departure granted, we lack jurisdiction to
provide such review. See, e.g., id. at 143, 145 (concluding that there was no jurisdiction
to review the defendant’s substantive challenge that “the District Court erred by failing to
grant him a downward departure greater than the one month he received”).
2 United States v. Jackson, 132 F.4th 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 223 L. Ed. 2d
504 (Jan. 12, 2026).
3 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
4 Id.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the
same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.”5
The District Court granted a downward departure and sentenced Wheeler to 168
months’ imprisonment. Wheeler contends that the District Court should have departed
further from the Guidelines range. In fashioning a sentence, however, the District Court
considered the information the parties presented, explained its basis for granting a
departure, followed our precedent regarding the § 3553(a) factors, and acknowledged its
discretion in determining the amount to depart.6 It cannot be said that no reasonable court
would have imposed a 168-month sentence on Wheeler for distributing heroin and
fentanyl resulting in death. The District Court’s sentence was procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
5 United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009).
6 As stated previously, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. Torres, 251 F.3d
at 143,145.

-- 3 of 3 --