United States v. Halim Cristo-Fares, 708 F. App'x 1

Defendant Halim Cristo-Fares pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder narcotics proceeds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1956(a)(3)(A), and 1956(a)(3)(B).
He was sentenced by the Southern District of New York to 57 months’ imprisonment on April 14, 2016.
Cristo-Fares appealed, asserting procedural and substantive sentencing errors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
His principal procedural claims: the district court treated the Guidelines as presumptive, failed to weigh his personal characteristics, and failed to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities with co-defendants.
He also argued the imposed sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Second Circuit reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court treated Guidelines as presumptive	N/A (government defended sentence)	Cristo-Fares: court treated Guidelines as presumptively reasonable	Court: No — district court explicitly viewed Guidelines as one factor and considered § 3553(a) factors; no procedural error
Whether court failed to consider disparities with co-defendants	N/A	Cristo-Fares: court should have avoided unwarranted sentencing disparities	Court: § 3553(a)(6) does not require considering disparities between co-defendants; he was first sentenced so no later disparities to consider; affirmed
Whether court failed to consider defendant's personal characteristics	N/A	Cristo-Fares: court did not properly weigh clean record, family hardship, health	Court: Record shows court considered these matters; no procedural error
Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable	N/A	Cristo-Fares: sentence (57 months) substantively unreasonable	Court: Sentence within district court’s broad discretion and not outside the range of reasonable decisions; affirmed

United States v. Friedberg, 558 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviews reasonableness inquiry has procedural and substantive components)
United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (examples of procedural sentencing error)
United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2013) (district court must calculate Guidelines, treat them as advisory, consider § 3553(a) factors, and explain sentence)
United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008) (§ 3553(a)(6) does not require considering disparities between co-defendants)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (substantive unreasonableness review: only exceptional cases fall outside reasonable range)