United States v. Erskine
682 F. App'x 40
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Arlincy Erskine pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine after concealing over 1.5 kilograms in a false bottom of a suitcase.
- Charged in the Eastern District of New York; sentenced by Judge Ross to 15 months’ imprisonment, three years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
- The Guidelines range for her offense was 27–33 months; the district court imposed a one-year below-Guidelines sentence.
- The district court relied on mitigating factors: Erskine’s military service, pursuit of a bachelor’s degree, and status as a single mother of a pre-teen.
- Erskine appealed only the substantive reasonableness of her sentence, arguing it was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a) | United States: the below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable given the offense and district court’s discretion | Erskine: 15 months is greater than necessary to accomplish sentencing goals and therefore substantively unreasonable | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court’s below-Guidelines disposition was within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may consider disparities in Guidelines when imposing sentence)
- United States v. McIntosh, 753 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing: abuse of discretion; substantive unreasonableness review)
- United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable in the overwhelming majority of cases, especially when defendant receives a below-Guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Young, 811 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 2016) (review of substantive reasonableness considers totality of circumstances and deference to district court)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive-review standard: set aside only in exceptional cases where decision is outside range of permissible outcomes)