United States v. Hunter
703 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Hunter, while on federal supervised release, committed a 2009 robbery and sexual assault in New York and was later convicted in New York State court and sentenced to 17 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
- The federal district court found Hunter violated his federal supervised release based on the 2009 conduct and revoked release.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range for revocation was 51–60 months; the district court imposed a below-Guidelines term of 48 months.
- The district court ordered the 48-month federal sentence to run consecutive to Hunter’s undischarged state term.
- Hunter challenged the sentence on appeal as substantively unreasonable and argued the consecutive requirement was unduly harsh given his lengthy state sentence and cognitive difficulties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 48-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable | Gov: Sentence within permissible range and below Guidelines; court considered §3553(a) factors | Hunter: 48 months is excessive given circumstances and cognitive issues | Affirmed: Sentence is within permissible range and not substantively unreasonable |
| Whether the federal term must run consecutive to the state term | Gov: Consecutive sentence permissible; supervised-release sanction distinct from punishment for underlying crime | Hunter: Consecutive term is duplicative and harsher than necessary given long state sentence | Affirmed: Consecutive sentence appropriate due to breach-of-trust rationale and district court’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2007) (revocation sentence sanctions breach of trust, not underlying offense)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Fleming, 397 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2005) (appellate restraint in sentencing review)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (Guidelines sentences reasonable in majority of cases)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Guidelines’ significance in reasonableness review)
- United States v. Jenkins, 854 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2017) (district courts may rely on record evidence over statistical age-based recidivism assumptions)