United States v. Genao
869 F.3d 136
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Genao, a Dominican national and long‑term Lawful Permanent Resident, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the U.S. after deportation following a 2009 New York burglary/robbery record.
- Genao completed a six‑year state sentence for first‑degree burglary with a dangerous instrument and was deported in February 2015.
- He attempted to reenter on August 23, 2015 and was indicted under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)/(b)(2).
- The PSR incorrectly identified his robbery conviction as second‑degree robbery of a motor vehicle; the actual conviction was first‑degree robbery with a dangerous instrument.
- The PSR’s 16‑level enhancement for a “crime of violence” was based on the mistaken robbery charge and the burglary conviction, arguing it raised the Guidelines range to 46–57 months.
- At sentencing, the district court did not adequately explain the 16‑level enhancement or adopt the PSR in open court, and the court relied on the PSR’s findings to support the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 16‑level enhancement for a crime of violence was properly applied | Genao argues the robbery charge was not a crime of violence and the burglary analysis was flawed. | Genao contends the court relied on incorrect/undisclosed facts and that the categorical/modified approach was not properly applied. | Procedural error; enhancement not clearly supported; remanded for de novo resentencing. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the sentence and the enhancement | The court provided sparse, general reasons and did not explain rejection of the categorical approach. | The record contained sufficient reasoning, but the court failed to articulate it. | Open‑court explanation required; failure to provide adequate reasons constitutes procedural unreasonableness. |
| Whether the PSR alone could support the enhancement when the court did not adopt it in open court | Relying on the PSR without explicit in‑court reasoning is insufficient to justify the enhancement. | If PSR findings sufficiently support the enhancement, adopting them in open court is not necessary. | PSR alone did not clearly support the enhancement; need for proper explanation or adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requires reasons for sentence under 3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines as starting point; need individualized assessment)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (emphasizes need for reasoned explanation under 3553(a))
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (elements‑only (categorical) approach for prior offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach; divisible statutes)
- Beardsley v. United States, 691 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2012) (clarifies crime of violence analysis under career-offender framework)
- United States v. Reyes, 691 F.3d 453 (2d Cir. 2012) (describes necessary inquiry for crime of violence under related guidelines)
- Carter v. United States, 489 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2007) (open court adoption of PSR and related findings)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (force clause interpretation in 'crime of violence')
- United States v. Williams, 524 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2008) (importance of individualized sentencing factors)