United States v. DiRose, 586 F. App'x 808

DiRose was originally sentenced in 1998 for conspiracy to commit tax fraud: 18 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release; his supervised release began August 5, 2005, after other consecutive sentences.
Within four days of release he absconded, failed to report to his probation officer, and did not notify of a change in residence; he remained at large until arrested in Florida in November 2013.
Upon return, DiRose admitted two supervised-release violations: failure to report and failure to notify; the district court classified them as Grade C violations.
The district court found a criminal history category VI and calculated an advisory USSG range of 8–14 months, but imposed a 24-month sentence (above the Guidelines range).
DiRose appealed, raising procedural and substantive challenges to the sentence; the Second Circuit reviewed for reasonableness and applied plain-error review to unpreserved objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court failed to consider DiRose’s medical condition	Government contended sentencing considered relevant factors; implicitly argued no error	DiRose argued district court did not explain how medical needs influenced sentence	Court presumed statutory factors were considered; discussion at sentencing rebutted DiRose’s claim — no plain error
Whether breach-of-trust rationale duplicated Guideline factors	Government: breach-of-trust is a proper factor to assess extent of violation	DiRose argued court relied on a reason already accounted for in Guidelines, making it improper	Court held using breach-of-trust to justify an above-Guidelines sentence gives effect to the Guidelines’ policy statement — permissible
Whether court improperly considered crimes committed while a fugitive	Government treated fugitive conduct as evidence of breach of trust and relevant to sentence	DiRose argued fugitive crimes should not have been considered in sentencing for supervised-release violations	Court approved consideration of fugitive conduct as evidence of breach-of-trust; within district court’s discretion
Procedural/substantive reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence	Government justified sentence based on extent of breach and deterrence	DiRose asserted sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable	Second Circuit found no procedural error and no plain error; affirmed judgment

United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard of appellate review for sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to sentencing review)
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (both sentence and sentencing procedures reviewed for reasonableness)
United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that district court considered statutory sentencing factors)
United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for raised-on-appeal sentencing objections)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (context for appellate review of sentences)