3739-Cr(L)
Background
- Aisha Babilonia pleaded guilty to interstate stalking conspiracy after participating in a plot that targeted her abusive boyfriend; she provided a photo of the target and agreed to dismissals of murder‑for‑hire and attempted murder counts under a plea agreement stipulating a 24–37 month range. The district court later upwardly departed and imposed the statutory maximum of 60 months.
- Ruben Davis pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute narcotics and (2) aiding and abetting a §924(c) firearms offense; he admitted facts about the conspiracy and co‑conspirators’ use of guns and was sentenced to 228 months. He waived appeal of shorter sentences in his plea agreement but challenged the plea and counsel conflicts on appeal.
- Babilonia argued her 60‑month sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the court should have held a Fatico evidentiary hearing before upwardly departing under U.S.S.G. §5K2.21.
- Davis argued (1) the Rule 11 colloquy lacked an adequate factual basis for the §924(c) aiding‑and‑abetting conviction (post‑Rosemond), and (2) he was deprived of conflict‑free counsel because his lawyer had potential conflicts (Curcio concerns) and the court failed to appoint independent counsel or allow adequate time to consider waiver.
- The Second Circuit affirmed both judgments: it rejected Babilonia’s challenges to notice, refusal to hold a Fatico hearing, and substantive unreasonableness; it also found Davis’s plea had a sufficient factual basis and that Davis knowingly and intelligently waived any conflict objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of Babilonia's sentence | District court gave notice, considered evidence from Key trial, and properly applied §5K2.21 to depart upward | Babilonia: departure was procedurally flawed; needed Fatico hearing; Guidelines stipulation foreclosed departure | Affirmed — court provided notice, opportunity to contest facts, and adequate explanation for upward departure |
| Substantive reasonableness of Babilonia's 60‑month sentence | Sentence justified by seriousness of conduct (significant role in murder‑for‑hire plot) despite abuse mitigation | Babilonia: duress/abuse warranted a lower sentence within stipulated range | Affirmed — not an abuse of discretion; district court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors |
| Sufficiency of factual basis for Davis’s §924(c) plea (post‑Rosemond) | Davis’s allocution admitted knowledge of co‑conspirators’ firearms, intent they carry guns, access to guns — satisfies Rosemond elements | Davis: plea lacked specific factual basis for aiding and abetting a §924(c) offense | Affirmed — Davis’s admissions satisfied affirmative act and advance knowledge elements; government proffer supported plea |
| Adequacy of Curcio procedures / conflict‑free counsel for Davis | Court fully advised Davis of risks, questioned him, offered time/independent counsel, and Davis waived knowingly | Davis: court should have appointed independent counsel or given more time due to lack of sophistication | Affirmed — Curcio procedures followed; waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards)
- United States v. Chu, 714 F.3d 742 (2d Cir. 2013) (procedural‑reasonableness principles)
- United States v. Campbell, 967 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1992) (explanation requirement for §5K2 departures)
- United States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086 (2d Cir. 1996) (Fatico hearing not always required; defendant must have opportunity to rebut)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (appellate deference to district court’s weighting of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir. 1997) (Rule 11 factual‑basis standard)
- United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (sources for establishing factual basis)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (aiding‑and‑abetting §924(c) requires affirmative act and intent/advance knowledge)
- United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain‑error review of unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
- United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir. 1982) (procedures for advising defendant regarding counsel conflicts)
- United States v. Iorizzo, 786 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1986) (Curcio procedure description)
- United States v. Lussier, 71 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 1995) (defendant education alone does not require appointment of independent counsel)
- United States v. Riggi, 649 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2011) (enforceability of appellate waivers)