United States v. Goins (Steele)
402 F. App'x 660
2d Cir.2010Background
- Steele was convicted at trial of conspiratorial and substantive possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846.
- On remand following our decision in Regalado procedures, Steele was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release.
- Steele challenged procedural aspects of the sentence, including handling of guideline rangeReasoning, consideration of drug dependency, and 3553(a) factors for supervised release.
- The district court acknowledged cocaine-base/crack disparity and explained it could impose a non-Guidelines sentence under Booker and Kimbrough.
- The district court stated it considered submissions and Steele’s history, and determined a longer probationary period would benefit him; the court affirmed a within-range sentence.
- The Second Circuit upheld the sentence, reviewing for reasonableness and finding no procedural or substantive errors warranting remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural sufficiency of sentence | Steele argues procedural flaws in range assumption and statutory factors. | Steele contends court erred by not properly treating guideline range and statutory factors. | No procedural error; court properly treated discretion post-Booker and Kimbrough. |
| Consideration of drug dependency | Steele asserts the court failed to consider his drug dependency as a factor. | Steele relied on submissions; court read and considered history and 3553(a) factors. | No reversible error; record supports that court considered relevant factors. |
| Consideration of § 3583(c) factors | Steele contends district court did not consider § 3583(c) factors for supervision. | Steele asserts the court weighed factors and chose longer probationary supervision. | No error; court considered factors and explained rationale. |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Steele claims 151 months and 10 years’ supervision were greater than necessary; mandatory minimum could have sufficed. | Court had wide latitude; within-range sentence could be reasonable given offenses and history. | Sentence deemed reasonably within the broad range of permissible decisions. |
| Disparity and policy considerations on crack/powder sentencing | Argues disparity warrants departure from crack guidelines under policy disagreement. | District court acknowledged disparity and exercised discretion under Booker/Kimbrough to impose within-range sentence. | Court properly exercised discretion; no remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (remand procedures following circuit instructions for sentencing after Booker)
- United States v. Canova, 485 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 2007) (procedural/leniency in reasonableness review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc: review for reasonableness; standard for substantive review)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (policy-based discretion to vary from crack guidelines)
- Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (S. Ct. 2009) (recognizes district courts’ authority to vary post-Booker)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness and within-Guidelines presumptions)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that court considered properly presented arguments)
- United States v. Negron, 524 F.3d 358 (2d Cir. 2008) (presumption of considering § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Malki, 609 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming consideration of statutory factors in sentencing)
- United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonableness standard for sentencing)