United States v. Allen
662 F. App'x 80
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Derek Winn was originally convicted in EDNY on narcotics and firearms charges, received a downward variance for cooperation, and was placed on supervised release.
- Winn absconded from supervision, was arrested in Georgia over two years later, and pled guilty in the SDGA to a fraud offense (24 months).
- He later pled guilty in EDNY to violating supervised release by committing a new federal offense; the district court revoked and sentenced him to 36 months, consecutive to the SDGA sentence—well above the Guidelines range (8–14 months).
- At sentencing the district court emphasized Winn’s breach of the Court’s trust, prior leniency, prior unpunished supervised-release violations, absconding, and conduct in Georgia (including being with a 16-year-old and staying where crimes occurred).
- Winn argued procedural error (insufficient explanation, reliance on uncharged/unproven conduct, inconsistency between oral and written reasons) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the degree of variance.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding the district court’s explanation adequate, that admitted/uncontested conduct could be considered, and that the upward variance was within the range of permissible decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) | Court provided sufficient reasons for above-Guidelines sentence | Winn: oral and written reasons inconsistent and insufficiently specific | Affirmed: no procedural error; explanations (oral + written) collectively adequate |
| Consideration of uncharged/unproven conduct | Government: sentencing court may consider such conduct if proven by preponderance | Winn: court relied on arrest circumstances (location of crimes; minor) without findings | Affirmed: Winn admitted/failed to dispute these facts; court’s limited reliance permissible |
| Magnitude of variance / substantive reasonableness | Court: breach of trust and prior leniency justified significant upward variance | Winn: court failed to explain why a shorter sentence wouldn’t suffice | Affirmed: variance not "shockingly" unreasonable and within permissible range |
| Reliance on prior downward variance | Government: prior leniency can justify upward variance on revocation | Winn: Sindima prohibits using factors already accounted for in Guidelines without specific articulation | Affirmed: district court articulated why Winn’s situation differed from ordinary cases and permissibly relied on prior leniency |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (clarifies plain-error standard elements)
- United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2007) (requires specific articulation when using factors already accounted for in Guidelines)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (uncharged or dismissed conduct may be considered if proven by a preponderance)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (preservation rules and review for sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for assessing substantive reasonableness of non-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Jones, 460 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2006) (no requirement to articulate why each month of an above-Guidelines sentence is necessary)