United States v. Jakob Gucu

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 24-2444

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAKOB GUCU,

Appellant

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3:20-cr-00122-001)

District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 28, 2025

Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges (Filed: May 27, 2025)

_______________

OPINION *

_______________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Jakob Gucu appeals the District Court’s refusal to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm. 1 Gucu contends “[t]he District Court . . . abused its discretion by failing to direct the parties to address [his] post-sentencing conduct” in fuller briefing on the application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Opening Br. 11. When evaluating whether to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), a district court “shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community,” and it “may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant.” United States v. Rodriguez, 855 F.3d 526, 529 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(ii)–(iii)). The procedures it employs to conduct that analysis, though, are a matter of discretion. See United States v. Styer, 573 F.3d 151, 154 (3d Cir. 2009).

As the original sentencing court, the District Court already “was familiar with the facts of [Gucu’s] case” and was therefore “in the best position to determine whether” additional briefing was needed. Id. Because it had already considered the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing and opted not to rely on post-sentencing conduct, the Court was within its discretion to decide Gucu’s § 3582(c)(2) motion without additional briefing on those same factors. See id.; cf. United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we will affirm.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a motion to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527, 531 (3d Cir. 2012).