Affirming Upward Variance for Straw Firearm Purchases to Deter Gang-Related Gun Violence

Introduction

In United States v. Jordan Harmon, No. 24-1797 (3d Cir. May 7, 2025), the Third Circuit addressed whether a below-Guidelines defendant’s 36-month sentence for making a false statement to acquire a firearm was substantively reasonable in light of the district court’s upward variance. Jordan Harmon, a Delaware resident, pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) & 924(a)(2) to a so-called “straw purchase,” having bought a .40-caliber pistol that he knew would be re-sold to third parties, including members or associates of a Crips gang cell. The Government sought an above-Guidelines sentence to reflect the seriousness of straw purchases that fuel gang violence and to deter others from similar conduct. Harmon challenged the 36-month term as excessive. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 12–18 months based on a total offense level of 13 (including a four-level enhancement for dealing in 8–24 firearms) and Criminal History Category I. Despite that range, the court granted the Government’s motion for an upward variance to 36 months, citing: (1) the inadequacy of the “number‐of‐guns” enhancement to distinguish straw purchasing from mere possession; (2) Harmon’s dealings with individuals linked to the Crips; (3) seven of the nineteen guns later recovered in the commission of crimes; and (4) the need for general deterrence in a community plagued by gun violence. On appeal, Harmon argued the variance was unreasonable. Applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard from United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc), the Third Circuit concluded the district court had given meaningful consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that no reasonable court would decline to impose the same sentence for the articulated reasons. The 36-month sentence was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc): Established the deferential standard for review of substantive reasonableness; a sentence will be upheld unless “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence . . . for the reasons the district court provided.”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): Governs sentencing factors, including seriousness of the offense, deterrence, and protection of the public.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B): Four-level enhancement for offenses involving 8–24 firearms.
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1: Three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures 5.7: Clarifies that nonprecedential dispositions do not bind future panels, but still illuminate the court’s approach to reasonableness review.

Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit’s analysis focused on two layers of reasonableness review:

District Court’s 3553(a) Analysis
The district court observed that the Guidelines enhancement for multiple firearms did not distinguish between lawful possession and purposeful straw purchasing to arm gang members. It found that by moving nineteen guns into a community troubled by gang violence—seven of which surfaced in later crimes—Harmon’s conduct was more serious than the baseline offense level reflected. The court also emphasized the need for general deterrence, noting Dover’s rising gun crime and the risk that clean-record individuals might become unwitting tools in gun trafficking. Although it recognized Harmon’s minimal criminal history, the court concluded a significant variance was necessary to fulfill Congress’s goals under § 3553(a).
Appellate Review for Abuse of Discretion
Citing Tomko, the appellate panel affirmed that a reviewing court must uphold a sentence unless it is “so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” The Third Circuit found that the district court adequately weighed the statutory factors, articulated legitimate concerns about public safety and deterrence, and did not rely on impermissible considerations. The panel rejected Harmon’s argument that the variance was improper because the court focused on gun trafficking generally rather than his individual conduct; the court’s emphasis on the gang context and recovered firearms tied the variance directly to Harmon's wrongdoing.

Impact

This decision reinforces two key principles in federal sentencing:

Scope of “Number‐of‐Guns” Enhancement: Courts need not limit their 3553(a) analysis solely to Guideline adjustments. Even when an enhancement exists, district judges may find it insufficient to capture the real‐world harm of straw purchases that feed violent crime.
Deference to Upward Variances: Under Tomko, appellate courts will rarely disturb above‐Guidelines sentences absent clear error in the district court’s application of the statutory factors. This case underscores that general deterrence, when tied to a specific local crime problem, can justify substantial variances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Straw Purchase: When an individual buys a firearm for someone else who is prohibited or intends to conceal the buyer’s identity. This fuels illicit markets and gang violence.
Guidelines Enhancement vs. Variance: An enhancement is an automatic adjustment to a guidelines range based on offense characteristics (e.g., number of guns). A variance is a discretionary departure from the range after considering § 3553(a) factors.
Substantive Reasonableness: Asks whether the sentence is justified by the statutory factors, not merely whether it falls within the guidelines range.

Conclusion

United States v. Harmon affirms the broad discretion of district courts to impose above‐Guidelines sentences when the advisory range fails to account adequately for the gravity and public‐safety consequences of an offense. By upholding the 36-month term, the Third Circuit signaled that straw purchases facilitating gang violence may warrant significant variances to achieve deterrence and reflect societal condemnation. Going forward, sentencing courts will point to Harmon as authority for examining real-world harms beyond numeric enhancements and for using variances to discourage illicit gun-trafficking schemes.