-
11-1369-cr United States v. MacDaniel UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 16th day of May, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges, 9 J. GARVAN MURTHA, 10 District Judge.* 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 16 Appellee, 17 18 -v.- 11-1369-cr 19 20 HAROLD GEORGE MACDANIEL, 21 22 Defendant-Appellant. 23 24 25 FOR APPELLANT: LAWRENCE GERZOG, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR APPELLEE: DOUGLAS P. MORABITO, Assistant United 28 States Attorney (Robert M. Spector, 29 Assistant United States Attorney, on the * The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 1 brief), for David B. Fein, United States 2 Attorney for the District of Connecticut, 3 New Haven, CT. 4 5 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 6 District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.). 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 10 AFFIRMED. 11 Plaintiff-Appellant Harold George MacDaniel appeals 12 from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States 13 District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, 14 J.), following his guilty plea to one count of possession of 15 ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 16 § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced MacDaniel 17 principally to a term of 57 months’ imprisonment and three 18 years’ supervised release. We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 20 of the case. 21 MacDaniel challenges his three-year term of supervised 22 release as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 23 Our review of the reasonableness of a sentence is “akin to 24 review for abuse of discretion.” United States v. 25 Fernandez,
443 F.3d 19, 26-27 (2d Cir. 2006). Because 26 MacDaniel failed to assert any objection to his term of 2 1 supervised release to the district court, his challenge on 2 appeal is subject to review for plain error. See United 3 States v. Villafuerte,
502 F.3d 204, 208-11 (2d Cir. 2007). 4 MacDaniel contends that the district court failed to 5 consider the relevant statutory factors and state its 6 reasons for imposing the supervised release term. After a 7 thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district 8 court did not err, much less commit plain error, in imposing 9 a three-year term of supervised release. The term was 10 consistent with the period of supervised release authorized 11 by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2). 12 Nothing in the record overcomes the presumption that the 13 district court faithfully considered the applicable 14 statutory factors in imposing the term of supervised release 15 as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). See Fernandez,
443 F.3d 16at 30. 17 There is no dispute that the district court considered 18 the statutory factors in determining MacDaniel’s 19 incarceration term. We find no reason to believe that those 20 factors were considered only in imposing the incarceration 21 aspect of MacDaniel’s sentence. Indeed, in imposing the 22 special conditions of supervised release—requiring MacDaniel 3 1 to receive substance abuse and mental health treatment and 2 to refrain from possessing a dangerous weapon—the district 3 court considered the particular facts of his offense 4 conduct, as well as his personal history and 5 characteristics. In the absence of record evidence 6 suggesting otherwise, we cannot conclude that the district 7 court considered the statutory factors only with respect to 8 the conditions of supervised release and not to the length 9 of the term of supervised release. See United States v. 10 Sero,
520 F.3d 187, 192 (2d Cir. 2008). 11 Moreover, because the district court stated reasons for 12 the sentence when it imposed the incarceration term and set 13 the special conditions of supervised release, it adequately 14 articulated its basis for the supervised release term. See 15 id. The district court provided ample justification for 16 both the term length and special conditions of supervised 17 release by explicitly adopting the factual findings of the 18 presentence report (“PSR”) pertaining to MacDaniel’s offense 19 conduct, criminal record, and history of substance abuse and 20 mental health issues. 21 Finally, MacDaniel’s conclusory claim of substantive 22 unreasonableness is without merit. In considering the 4 1 substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we “take into 2 account the totality of the circumstances, giving due 3 deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion, 4 and bearing in mind the institutional advantages of district 5 courts.” United States v. Cavera,
550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d 6 Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court adopted the 7 factual findings of the PSR without any objection from 8 MacDaniel. These findings fully support the district 9 court’s decision to impose a three-year term of supervised 10 release. Because the term of supervised release was “within 11 the range of permissible decisions,” we will not set it 12 aside as substantively unreasonable. United States v. 13 Rigas,
583 F.3d 108, 122 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 14 marks omitted). 15 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 16 court is hereby AFFIRMED. 17 18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20 21 5
Document Info
Docket Number: 11-1369-cr
Citation Numbers: 480 F. App'x 623
Judges: Garvan, Lohier, Murtha, Raymond, Richard, Wesley
Filed Date: 5/16/2012
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023