United States v. Aldeen
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11591
2d Cir.2015Background
- Ahmed Aldeen pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession of child pornography; sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release with standard and special conditions (including ban on accessing pornography and reporting computers/devices).
- After release, Aldeen violated supervision by failing to report to probation and received 10 months' imprisonment and another 3 years' supervised release (judgment entered January 2013).
- During the second supervised‑release term, probation charged Aldeen with multiple violations, including (1) associating with a convicted felon (standard condition 9) after speaking with a fellow treatment‑group member on the subway, and (2) possessing unreported electronic devices containing pornographic images (special condition 2) and related state registration failures; Aldeen pled guilty only to the association charge and the other specifications were dismissed.
- The Guidelines range for the Grade C violation was 4–10 months; the district court sentenced Aldeen to 18 months' imprisonment plus 3 more years of supervised release—substantially above the advisory range—citing dishonesty, alleged unauthorized device use, polygraph results (later excluded), and alleged other misconduct.
- On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed both procedural and substantive reasonableness and remanded for resentencing, holding the district court failed to provide adequate findings and written reasons to support the above‑Guidelines variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) for an above‑Guidelines revocation sentence | Aldeen: district court failed to state specific reasons in open court and in the written statement of reasons for the large variance | Government: district court gave sufficient oral explanation of deterrence and recidivism concerns; could rely on probation report and argument | Court: Reversed and remanded—plain error; oral reasons and blank Part IV(C) insufficient for major upward variance; remand for specific findings and written reasons |
| Use of dismissed/unadmitted conduct in sentencing | Aldeen: sentencing relied on allegations (multiple devices, seeking assistance to flee) that were dismissed or not admitted; no findings or hearing | Government: court may consider such conduct if established by preponderance | Held: Court may consider dismissed/unadmitted conduct only after adequate findings; here the record lacks specific findings, so reliance on those allegations was improper without further fact‑finding on remand |
| Substantive reasonableness of 18‑month sentence (degree of variance) | Aldeen: sentence is excessively harsh for a single subway conversation; shocks or at least stirs the conscience | Government: district court reasonably exercised discretion given pattern of noncompliance and risk concerns | Held: Court could not assess substantive reasonableness on current record; sentence at least "conscience‑stirring" and remand required to develop factual record and justification |
| Remedy and scope of remand | Aldeen: vacatur and resentencing necessary; written reasons required even if defendant already served most time | Government: remand appropriate but likely will not shorten imprisonment already served | Held: Vacate and remand for resentencing with express instruction to make factual findings if relying on dismissed/unadmitted conduct and to complete written statement of reasons; mandate to issue forthwith because majority of sentence served |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing reasonableness standard; review of variances)
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (courts may consider acquitted or dismissed conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (importance of justifying extent of variance)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (revocation sentencing explanation need not be as detailed but must comply with § 3553(c))
- United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239 (plain error where revocation court failed to explain above‑Guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81 (statutory requirement to state reasons for sentence)
- United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186 (heightened obligation when deviating from policy statements)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reasonableness review)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (substantive‑reasonableness standards; "shocks the conscience")
- United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273 (same standard applies to supervised‑release revocation sentences)