Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Ross
Citation: 351 F. App'x 626Docket: No. 08-4604
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; November 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Glenn Theron Ross, Jr. pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to being a convicted felon in possession of three firearms and to possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana. The pre-sentence report calculated an offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of II, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 51 to 63 months of imprisonment. Ross sought a downward departure or variance from this range, arguing that his offenses were minor, asserting the firearms belonged to his son and a friend, and highlighting the limited quantity of marijuana. He also cited ongoing medical issues from a foot injury as a reason for a lighter sentence. At sentencing, the court adopted a guideline range of 53 to 61 months but ultimately granted a variance, imposing five years of probation and twelve months of home detention to be served concurrently for each count. The Government appealed, arguing procedural error in the sentencing process, claiming the District Court failed to adequately address its arguments for imprisonment and did not sufficiently consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The appellate court reviewed the claim under an abuse of discretion standard and found no error. It concluded that the District Court had considered both parties' arguments and made appropriate findings regarding the nature of the offenses and Ross’s personal circumstances, including his medical condition. The court acknowledged the advisory guideline range but determined incarceration was not warranted. The appellate court also rejected the Government's assertion that the District Court's reference to the 3553(a) factors was merely rote, stating that the court adequately weighed the relevant facts. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed, confirming its jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3231 and the appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742(b).