United States v. Agritelly
665 F. App'x 109
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Christopher Agritelly, previously convicted in Connecticut of first-degree sexual assault, pleaded guilty to failing to register under SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- District Court sentenced Agritelly to 24 months’ imprisonment (consecutive to state time) and eight years’ supervised release.
- The parties and the PSR relied on both the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) when determining supervised-release exposure.
- The district court treated the Guidelines range for supervised release as five years to life, rather than a fixed five-year term; the Government concedes this was incorrect.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for plain error and determined the Guidelines miscalculation tainted the supervised-release term and affected Agritelly’s substantial rights.
- The court vacated the supervised-release portion of the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the correct Guidelines calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court miscalculated the applicable Guidelines range for supervised release | Gov: parties inadvertently relied on an incorrect Guidelines range; district court used 5 years–life rather than the Guidelines’ single point | Agritelly: supervised-release term is unreasonable because it was imposed based on incorrect Guidelines calculation | Court: Yes. Guidelines should have produced a fixed five-year term; district court erred and calculation was plain error |
| Whether the miscalculation affected substantial rights and warrants resentencing | Gov: concedes error and supports remand | Agritelly: the incorrect calculation affected his substantial rights and could have changed outcome | Court: The error could have affected the sentence; remand for resentencing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (en banc) (standard for review of sentence reasonableness and procedural error)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review when no timely objection at sentencing)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (four-part test for plain-error correction)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework quoted in Marcus)
- United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2005) (incorrect Guidelines calculation can taint non-Guidelines sentences)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (showing a reasonable probability that a different Guidelines range would have produced a different sentence establishes effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Draper, 553 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2009) (error does not affect substantial rights if it had no effect on outcome)