United States v. Conca
635 F.3d 55
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Conca pled guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- The district court calculated a criminal history score including a 1996 New York youthful offender adjudication as an adult conviction.
- PSR set base offense level at 16, enhanced to 19 after credit for a 6-point enhancement for a rape in Oklahoma while in failure-to-register status.
- Conca objected to counting the youthful offender adjudication and to the 6-point enhancement; he argued the former should not be treated as an adult conviction.
- The district court admitted evidence to support the 6-point enhancement and adopted the PSR’s criminal history calculation, resulting in a Guideline range of 63–78 months and a 78-month sentence.
- On appeal, Conca challenged the criminal history calculation, arguing the youthful offender adjudication should not be counted as an adult conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the youthful offender adjudication counts as an adult conviction for criminal history | Conca contends the NY youthful offender adjudication should not be counted as adult. | Conca argues it should not be counted as adult; seeks reduction under 4A1.3. | Youthful offender adjudication properly treated as adult, affirmed. |
| Whether the 6-point enhancement for a sex offense during failure to register status is supported by the record | Conca argues due process requires more reliable proof before enhancement. | The government presented sufficient evidence at sentencing. | District court's enhancement upheld; sufficient evidence found by preponderance. |
| How to apply NY youthful offender rules to determine criminal history score under the Guidelines | Argues the record lacks clear application of NY youthful offender procedure to adult scoring. | District court properly examined nature, sentence, and time served per Driskell and related authorities. | Court properly applied Driskell framework to include youthful offender adjudication in criminal history. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matthews, 205 F.3d 544 (2d Cir. 2000) (youthful offender adjudication treated for criminal history purposes)
- United States v. Driskell, 277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2002) (focus on nature of prior proceedings, sentence, and time served)
- United States v. Jackson, 504 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2007) (multiple variables determine adult conviction status)
- United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2008) (guideline calculations de novo; reasonable review framework)
- United States v. Canova, 485 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences under §3553(a))