United States of America v. Edwin Irizarry, a/k/a King Penguin

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 24-1631
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EDWIN IRIZARRY,
a/k/a King Penguin,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00044-004)
District Judge: Hon. Gene E. K. Pratter
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 27, 2026
Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 9, 2026)
____________
OPINION*
____________
* 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 4 --

2
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Edwin Irizarry appeals his judgment of sentence. We will affirm.
I
A member of the Latin Kings gang, Irizarry was charged with sixteen co-
Defendants for his participation in a racketeering conspiracy. He was convicted of:
(1) one count of conspiracy to participate in the affairs of a racketeering enterprise
(RICO), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (2) one count of attempted murder, and
three counts of conspiracy to commit murder, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5);
and (3) two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a
conspiracy to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and 2.
The District Court sentenced Irizarry to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment
for the RICO conspiracy and ten years’ imprisonment for each of the attempted murder
and conspiracy counts. The Court also sentenced Irizarry to ten years’ and twenty-five
years’ imprisonment for the first and second firearm counts, to run consecutively, in
accordance with the mandatory statutory minimums then in effect. So Irizarry’s total
effective sentence was life imprisonment (for the conspiracy and attempted murder
counts) plus thirty-five years (for using a firearm during two of those crimes).
After the Supreme Court held § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional in United States v.
Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), Irizarry collaterally attacked his sentence. He argued—and
the Government agreed—that his two firearm convictions should be vacated. On the
remaining four counts, the Government recommended that the District Court resentence
Irizzary to the same terms, “resulting in an overall sentence of life imprisonment.” App.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
176. The District Court instead resentenced Irizarry to fifty years’ imprisonment on the
RICO count, and ten years’ imprisonment on each of the four remaining counts, all to run
concurrently with credit for time served. He timely appealed.
II1
Irizarry’s sole contention on appeal—that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable—is without merit. He cannot demonstrate that “no reasonable sentencing
court would have imposed the same sentence . . . for the reasons the [District Court]
provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).
At the resentencing hearing, the District Court noted that, “the law ha[d] not
changed in so many ways that there [would be] a wildly different outcome for” Irizarry.
App. 264. Though two of his six convictions were vacated in light of Davis, Irizarry’s
sentences on those vacated convictions were to run consecutively to his life sentence. So
even after those two convictions were vacated, the Court could have resentenced Irizarry
to life, as the Government urged, and as it had originally done.
Yet the District Court—after considering Irizarry’s steps towards rehabilitation
while incarcerated, including taking accountability for his actions—varied downward
from the term of life imprisonment recommended by the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. The Court imposed a total sentence of 50 years’ imprisonment. In doing so, it
expressly considered the nature of Irizarry’s crimes, emphasizing that he continued to
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567–68 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
deserve “serious punishment” for his role in violent gang activity. App. 296. The Court
stressed that Irizarry had treated “the life of another human being as something to be
thrown away,” App. 297, and articulated the need to deter others from “following [his]
example,” App. 306. At the same time, the Court acknowledged Irizarry’s “not-
inappropriate” level of remorse and his “improved” attitude since his original sentencing
hearing over sixteen years earlier. App. 302.
The Court concluded the hearing by stating that, although it had originally
intended to reimpose life imprisonment, Irizarry’s “deportment” throughout the hearing
convinced it to impose a more lenient sentence. App. 311. In doing so, the Court
reasonably took all his “history and characteristics” into account while imposing a
sentence that adequately reflected the “seriousness of the offense[s],” and the goals of
deterrence and protection of the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Because the “record as a whole” demonstrates the District Court’s “rational and
meaningful consideration of” the sentencing factors, we will affirm the judgment of
sentence. Tomko, 562 F.3d at 568.

-- 4 of 4 --