940 F.3d 167
2d Cir.2019Background
- Degroate pleaded guilty to a RICO conspiracy in 2013, was sentenced to 73 months (reduced to 63 months) and three years’ supervised release.
- After release he accrued multiple supervised‑release violations; at an October 10, 2017 revocation the court sentenced him to 8 months and added a special curfew condition: “comply with a curfew commencing on a date and under conditions to be set by the probation officer.”
- In June 2018 the court modified supervision to include electronic monitoring; shortly thereafter Degroate tampered with his ankle monitor and left his home during a Probation‑imposed weekend lockdown, and was also observed past curfew at a strip club with a convicted felon.
- At the July 20, 2018 revocation hearing Degroate admitted to electronic‑monitoring violations and a curfew violation; his counsel requested that Degroate’s mother speak, which the district court denied.
- The district court imposed an upward (above‑Guidelines) sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment; Degroate appealed, arguing (1) denial of a mitigation witness, (2) unlawful delegation of judicial authority in the curfew condition, and (3) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to call a mitigation witness (mother) at revocation | Govt: Rule 32.1(b)(2)(E) allows presentation of mitigating information but district court discretion governs format | Degroate: allocution right includes calling live character/mitigation witnesses (his mother) | Court: No right to present mitigation witnesses at revocation; denial was not plain error |
| Whether the curfew condition unlawfully delegated judicial authority to Probation | Govt: District court plainly imposed a curfew and only left timing/start details to Probation (permissible) | Degroate: wording left ultimate liberty restriction to Probation, rendering condition invalid | Court: Condition lawfully mandated curfew; delegating start/time details to Probation was permissible |
| Whether Probation’s weekend "lock‑down" (possible exceedance of delegated authority) invalidated revocation | Govt: Even if Probation exceeded authority, lockdown violations were minor and not relied on to determine sentence outcome | Degroate: lockdown exceeded authority and those violations should not support revocation | Court: Any error was harmless — lockdown violations did not affect outcome; other admitted violations supported revocation |
| Whether the 18‑month above‑Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Govt: Sentence warranted by repeated, willful breaches and danger/risk of recidivism; court considered §3553 factors | Degroate: Court over‑emphasized perceived dangerousness, relied on extra‑record material, and failed to weigh mitigating factors / grant horizontal departure | Court: Sentence within permissible range, court considered mitigating factors and did not abuse discretion; sentence not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) (district court may not delegate core liberty‑restraining decisions to Probation but may delegate minor details)
- United States v. Yilmaz, 910 F.3d 686 (2d Cir. 2018) (standard of review for reasonableness is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (standards for substantive‑reasonableness review)
- United States v. Boyland, 862 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2017) (plain‑error test and showing effect on outcome)
- United States v. Valdez, 426 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) (limits on appellate review of refusal to grant Guidelines departure)
- Contreras‑Delgado v. United States, 913 F.3d 232 (1st Cir. 2019) (no right to call witnesses at sentencing/revocation as of right)
- United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2015) (district court need not address each §3553(a) factor with rote recitation)