United States v. Mychael Saunders

── United States v. Mychael Saunders ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 25-1395 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MYCHAEL SAUNDERS, Appellant _____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Crim. No. 2:08-cr-00165-001) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond _____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 10, 2026 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 23, 2026) _________ OPINION 1 _________ 1 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Appellant Mychael Saunders appeals his new sentence, which the District Court imposed following a successful challenge to an underlying conviction related to his commission of a string of armed robberies. Saunders contends that the District Court committed four errors in resentencing him. We disagree and, thus, we will affirm. I. A. Between November 2005 and January 2006, Saunders and a coconspirator robbed a series of businesses in Philadelphia at gunpoint. He was later convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of attempted Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The District Court sentenced him to a within-the-U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range term of imprisonment of 619 months. B. As it had the first time, the Probation Office calculated Saunders’s Guideline range by considering each of the armed robberies that Saunders committed. It also again considered Saunders’s juvenile conviction and sentence to determine his criminal history category. At bottom, the Probation Office calculated Saunders’s Guideline range to be 248 to 295 months’ imprisonment. 2  The Government argued for an upward variance based upon, among other things, the violent nature of the offense, where “Saunders shot and badly injured an employee[,]” App. 152, and post-conviction evidence reflecting Saunders’s commission of eighteen disciplinary infractions (some involving violence against Bureau of Prisons staff) while imprisoned. Saunders, by contrast, argued for a sentence of time served, which he urged was “minimally sufficient to accomplish the goals of sentencing.” App. 167. In support of his request for a downward departure or variance, Saunders cited his relative youth at the time he committed his offenses, his change of heart and present acceptance of responsibility for his actions despite his earlier defiance, the support of his family, his various health issues, and his rehabilitation while in prison through education and work programs. Although his disciplinary records admittedly showed that he had some “egregiou