United States v. Catul
687 F. App'x 44
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Jean Claude Catul was convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft; separately, he was sentenced for violating supervised release.
- District court imposed 72 months for the fraud/identity-theft counts and 36 months consecutive for the supervised-release violation, totaling 108 months — 42 months above the top of his combined Guidelines ranges.
- Catul appealed, arguing the above-Guidelines variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because it was based solely on his criminal history, which the Guidelines already accounted for.
- The Government defended the sentence as within the district court’s discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- The Second Circuit reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under the abuse-of-discretion standard and considered whether recidivism alone can justify an upward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence solely on the basis of Catul’s criminal history | Government: sentence reasonable; district court cited deterrence and public protection, not merely criminal history | Catul: variance was based only on criminal history already reflected in Guidelines, so unreasonable | Affirmed — court found the district court relied on deterrence, public protection, violent tendencies, and lenient prior sentences, not solely criminal history |
| Whether recidivism alone may justify an upward variance | Government: recidivism is a permissible consideration among § 3553(a) factors | Catul: an above-Guidelines variance may not be imposed based only on criminal history already accounted for | Affirmed — Second Circuit held courts may consider recidivism and have wide latitude post-Booker to impose outside-Guidelines sentences when justified by § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are advisory; district courts may vary after considering § 3553(a))
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Guidelines are the starting point; sentencing judges have wide latitude)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory Guidelines struck; advisory framework established)