United States v. Cox, 458 F. App'x 79

Cox was convicted after trial on trafficking 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and multiple 924(c) firearms counts.
District court vacated firearms convictions under Watson v. United States and resentenced on drug charges.
On resentencing, Cox received four concurrent 360-month terms for narcotics crimes.
The district court calculated a Guideline range and considered parsimony, ultimately imposing 360 months.
Cox challenges the Guidelines calculation, the parsimony review, and the (mis)calculation of the mandatory minimum, arguing procedural/substantive unreasonableness; the Government concedes the error in the mandatory minimum was harmless.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment, applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review to the sentencing decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Guideline calculation for base offense and leadership	Cox argues improper base level (34) and leadership enhancement	Cox contends misapplication of quantity and role findings	Remand not required; findings supported; sentence upheld
Parsimony clause versus reasonableness standard	Parsimony clause should govern resentencing review	District court complied with parsimony obligations	Parsimony clause satisfied; standard applied was reasonable review under Cavera
Mandatory minimum under the Fair Sentencing Act	District court misidentified the mandatory minimum as 20 years	Error harmless; record shows same sentence under post-FSA guidelines	Error harmless; sentence upheld despite misstatement
Substantive reasonableness of the 360-month sentence	Sentence at bottom of Guidelines range may be substantively unreasonable	Crack cocaine Guidelines not inherently unreasonable; district court adequately weighed factors	Sentence within reasonable range; no abuse of discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008 (en banc)) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentences; same standard applied on appeal)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requirement of reasonable, proportionate sentences; policy framework for review)
United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217 (2d Cir. 2002) ( cogent/reasons framework for revisiting prior findings at resentencing)
United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (revisiting prior factual findings at re-sentencing requires cogent reasons)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (substantive unreasonableness of certain Guidelines; unusual provenance; not controlling here)
United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (retroactivity/harmless error considerations for (FSA))
United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (district court credibility and reliance on co-conspirator testimony within its discretion)
United States v. Deandrade, 600 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless error where sentence exceeds minimum regardless of miscalculation)
United States v. Cox, 59 F. App'x 437 (2d Cir. 2003) (prior panel ruling on co-conspirator credibility and sentencing)