United States v. Ash
21-1403-cr
| 2d Cir. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Alvin Ash was originally sentenced in 2012 to 135 months imprisonment (later reduced to 120 months) plus five years supervised release after pleading guilty to a narcotics-conspiracy count.
- While on supervised release, the Probation Office filed a revocation petition; at a May 27, 2021 final revocation hearing Ash admitted eight violations (including new criminal conduct, failure to report, failure to submit to drug testing, and alcohol use).
- The District Court revoked supervised release, imposed a 10-month prison term, and imposed a two-year term of supervised release to follow.
- Ash appealed, arguing the two-year supervised-release term was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and asked for resentencing.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for reasonableness (procedural and substantive), applying plain-error review to procedural objections not preserved at sentencing, and affirmed the District Court's judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of supervised-release term | United States: District Court adequately explained sentence; explanation of imprisonment covers supervised release. | Ash: Court failed to state reasons for the supervised-release term separately, violating 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). | No plain error; explanation for imprisonment sufficed and no separate recitation required except in narrow cases (Williams). |
| Substantive reasonableness of supervised-release term | United States: Two-year term is within permissible range, serves rehabilitative goals given Ash's violations. | Ash: Two-year term is unduly harsh and not serving rehabilitation. | Affirmed; sentence not an exceptional case and is substantively reasonable and rehabilitative. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences and procedural/substantive components)
- United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018) (same standards apply to supervised-release revocation sentences)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (substantive-unreasonableness standard: only set aside in exceptional cases)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review when no timely objection at sentencing)
- United States v. Williams, 998 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2021) (district court need not separately explain each part of a sentence except in narrow circumstances)