United States v. Ingram
721 F.3d 35
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Undercover officer met Ingram at Gates Housing Project, and Ingram sold approximately one-half gram of crack cocaine in two transactions.
- Ingram was charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine within 1,000 feet of public housing.
- Ingram pled guilty to both counts on August 29, 2011.
- PSR calculated offense level 31 and criminal history category VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months, with a career offender enhancement under § 4B1.1.
- District court adopted the PSR range but imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 144 months.
- Ingram appealed challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 144-month sentence is substantively reasonable | Ingram argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable given his crime and history. | The district court sentenced below-range but found circumstances supporting leniency; sentence falls within permissible range. | Not substantively unreasonable; affirmed. |
| Whether Preacely-based procedural challenges apply and require a sequenced departure | Preacely requires a separate, possibly sequential, consideration of departures and variances; failure to do so is procedural error. | No rigid sequential requirement; post-Booker variance can follow non-Boarder departure without procedural error. | No procedural error; Preacely not required to mandate sequencing here. |
| Whether the court should have engaged in a pre-Booker horizontal departure before considering a variance | Defendant contends the district court could have, or should have, used a pre-Booker horizontal departure to reflect individualized circumstances. | The court properly exercised discretion; sequencing not mandated and pre-Booker departure not required before variance. | Permissible to proceed without mandatory pre-Booker horizontal departure; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; range of permissible sentences governs substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.2006) (Guidelines range typically reasonable within moral and factual framework)
- United States v. Mishoe, 241 F.3d 214 (2d Cir.2001) (horizontal departures under § 4A1.3(b) dependent on individualized circumstances)
- United States v. Preacely, 628 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.2010) (clarifies separation between horizontal departures and Booker variance; potential Preacely challenge)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S.2007) (post-Booker framework for variance and deference to district courts)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S.2007) (guideline range as starting point for sentencing and discretionary variance)
- Crosby v. United States, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005) (no rigid sequential procedure required in considering departures/variance)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.2010) (discusses substantive reasonableness and legislative framework)
- United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 168 (2d Cir.2008) (illustrates appellate review of sentencing within range of permissible decisions)