United States v. Reese , 568 F. App'x 74 ( 2014 )

13-2899
United States v. Reese
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 9th day of June, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 United States of America,
13 Appellee,
14
15 -v.- 13-2899
16
17 John Reese,
18 Defendant-Appellant.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: Lisa A. Peebles (James P. Egan,
22 on the brief), Federal Public
23 Defender, Syracuse, New York, on
24 submission.
25
26 FOR APPELLEES: Paul D. Silver (Lisa M.
27 Fletcher, on the brief), for
28 Richard S. Hartunian, United
1
1 States Attorney for the Northern
2 District of New York, Albany,
3 New York, on submission.
4
5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
6 Court for the Northen District of New York (Hurd, 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
12 John Reese appeals from the judgment of the United
13 States District Court for the Northen District of New York
14 (Hurd, J.), revoking Reese’s supervised release and
15 sentencing him to 9 months’ imprisonment, followed by a life
16 term of supervised release. Reese challenges the imposition
17 of lifetime supervised release on the grounds that the court
18 (1) failed to adequately explain the reason for the sentence
19 and (2) abused its discretion. We assume the parties’
20 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
21 history, and the issues presented for review.
22
23 1. Reese’s claim that the district court did not
24 adequately explain the reasons for his sentence, raised for
25 the first time on appeal, is reviewed for plain error.
26 United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2013).
27
28 The district court, “at the time of sentencing, shall
29 state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the
30 particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “Where, as
31 here, the sentence concerns a violation of supervised
32 release and the ultimate sentence is within the recommended
33 range, compliance with the statutory requirements can be
34 minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d
35 Cir. 2012). Upon review of the record, the district court
36 sufficiently explained that the violation occurred less than
37 one year after Reese’s release from prison, Reese had “lied
38 on a number of occasions,” and Reese “refus[ed] to accept
39 the situation.” A-122.
40
41 2. Reese argues that the district court abused its
42 discretion in imposing supervised release for life because
43 this term far exceeded the statutory maximum prison term
44 authorized for the underlying offense.
45
46 We review a sentence imposed for violating a condition
47 of supervised release under “the same standard as for
2
1 sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is
2 reasonable.” United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 277 (2d
3 Cir. 2005). We “set aside a district court’s substantive
4 determination only in exceptional cases where the trial
5 court’s decision cannot be located within the range of
6 permissible decisions.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d
7 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
8 and emphasis omitted).
9
10 A life term of supervised release has been found
11 reasonable where, as here, such a term was “recommended
12 under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Hayes,
13 445 F.3d 536, 537 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that such a
14 recommendation supports, but does not necessitate, a
15 determination of reasonableness). Moreover, “[d]istrict
16 courts are permitted . . . to hedge against a relatively
17 lenient term of imprisonment by imposing a longer term of
18 supervised release.” United States v. Leon, 663 F.3d 552,
19 556 (2d Cir. 2011), cert denied, 132 S. Ct. 1777 (2012)
20 (quotation marks and original brackets omitted). Here,
21 Judge Hurd considered imposing the statutory maximum prison
22 term of two years because Reese had violated the terms of
23 his supervised release in his first year out of prison,
24 Reese displayed a defiant attitude while under supervision,
25 and Reese had been untruthful about his conduct. However,
26 after considering Reese’s mitigating circumstances, the
27 district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of nine
28 months’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised
29 release. This sentence was reasonable and within the
30 court’s discretion.
31
32 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
33 Reese’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
34 the district court.
35
36 FOR THE COURT:
37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
38
3