United States v. Brome
665 F. App'x 89
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant James Brome, pro se, sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court denied Brome’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, citing the defendant’s "history and characteristics" and the need for a sentence reflecting seriousness of the offense.
- The district court relied in part on facts in Brome’s original Presentence Report (PSR): alleged absconding from supervision and an assault on another inmate.
- Brome was never prosecuted for absconding and was acquitted of the inmate-assault charge.
- The district court provided limited explanation for its discretionary ruling and no explanation at all when denying reconsideration.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded because the record did not allow meaningful review of the district court’s exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Government: district court permissibly exercised discretion given defendant’s history and need for sentence severity | Brome: district court relied on inaccurate or unproven PSR allegations and gave no adequate reasoning | Vacated and remanded — district court’s explanation insufficient to permit appellate review |
| Whether dismissed/uncharged conduct may be considered in discretionary sentencing-related decisions | Government: such conduct can inform discretion | Brome: reliance on unproven conduct was improper without factual findings | Court noted such conduct can be considered when appropriate findings are made but record here lacked clarity |
| Whether denial of reconsideration requires explanation | Government: district court need not elaborate | Brome: denial without any explanation prevents review | Remand required because denial of reconsideration contained no explanation and overall record was inadequate |
| Standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denials | Government: abuse-of-discretion standard applies | Brome: same; seeks reversal for abuse of discretion due to record defects | Second Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion and found vacatur necessary to assess discretionary ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Moreno, 789 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (abuse of discretion review for reconsideration denials)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir.) (dismissed charges may be considered at sentencing when supported by findings)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (district court must provide sufficient explanation to permit appellate review of discretionary decisions)