
    UNITED STATES of America, v. Renato P. MARIANI, Appellant. United States of America, v. Leo R. Del Serra, Appellant. United States of America, v. Michael L. Serafini, Appellant.
    Nos. 02-2700, 02-2704 and 02-2705.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued July 18, 2003.
    Decided Aug. 6, 2003.
    Mark E. Cedrone (Argued), Cedrone & Janove, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Renato P. Mariani.
    Robert E. Welsh, Jr. (Argued), Welsh & Recker, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Leo R. Del Serra.
    Gregory T. Magarity (Argued), Philadelphia, PA, and Peter Goldberger (Argued), Law Offices of Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, PA, for Appellant Michael L. Serafini.
    Bruce Brandler (Argued), Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: MCKEE, BARRY, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Renato P. Mariani, Michael L. Serafini, and Leo R. Del Serra were convicted on their pleas of guilty to Count One of two separate indictments, the first involving the illegal corporate reimbursement of campaign contributions, and the second involving the disposal of solid waste in a landfill in excess of the maximum permitted by state law. Following the pleas, there ensued extensive litigation over the various permutations which guideline sentencing so often involves, and surely involved in this somewhat complicated case. The District Court gave serious and extraordinarily careful consideration to every issue that was raised. On June 7, 2002, sentences of 22 months, 27 months, and 18 months, were imposed on Mariam, Serafini, and Del Serra, respectively, to be served concurrently.

On appeal, appellants have raised some new issues and some old ones in support of their bottom-line argument that the sentences should be lower than they are. After having carefully reviewed the sentences imposed and after having had the benefit of excellent oral argument from able counsel, we conclude that any error, if error there be, did not prejudice appellants. The judgments of sentence will, accordingly, be affirmed.  