United States v. Hobby
696 F. App'x 37
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Earl Hobby pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
- District Court sentenced Hobby to 46 months’ imprisonment (top of the Guidelines range).
- At sentencing, the Presentence Report (PSR) described Hobby’s conduct at arrest; Hobby did not object to that portion of the PSR and did not testify about his recollection of the arrest at the hearing.
- Hobby had offered to testify only regarding a proposed sentencing enhancement; the District Court rejected that enhancement without hearing his testimony.
- On appeal, Hobby challenged the sentence as (1) procedurally unreasonable for relying on the government’s factual representations and not hearing his testimony, and (2) substantively unreasonable as too lengthy and insufficiently responsive to his mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in sentencing for adopting government factual representations without hearing Hobby testify | Government: District Court properly relied on unobjected-to PSR and record; no error | Hobby: Court erred by adopting government facts without hearing his testimony about the arrest | No procedural error; Hobby had chance to speak, did not object to PSR, and the court need not hear testimony where it would not affect offense-conduct findings |
| Substantive unreasonableness of a within-Guidelines 46-month sentence | Government: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Hobby: sentence too long given his mitigation and prior sentences | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within-Guidelines sentence is permissible and sentencing judge’s weighing of §3553(a) factors is discretionary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of sentences)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural error categories at sentencing)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.) (within-Guidelines sentences generally reasonable)
- United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.) (weight given §3553(a) factors committed to sentencing court)
- United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review requirements)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reviewing courts may presume a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable)