United States v. James, 708 F. App'x 32

Defendant Raymond James pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 24–30 months and imposed a 27‑month custodial sentence.
The court considered James’s rehabilitation prospects and his lengthy criminal history, including prior firearm use in crimes and that he committed the instant offense on parole.
James appealed, arguing the 27‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Second Circuit reviews substantive-reasonableness challenges under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and will set aside a sentence only in exceptional cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether James’s 27‑month within‑Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable	Government: sentence is reasonable given criminal history and need for deterrence and respect for law	James: sentence is substantively unreasonable—court relied mainly on specific deterrence despite incarceration previously failing to deter him	Affirmed: within‑Guidelines 27‑month sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (articulates deferential abuse-of-discretion review for substantive-reasonableness challenges)
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses sentencing judge’s discretion in weighing factors)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (describes when a sentence is shockingly high or low)
United States v. Ryan, 806 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2015) (notes that Guidelines sentences typically fall within the range of reasonable sentences)
United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2008) (addresses reasonableness review of within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2011) (explains appellate court will not second-guess sentencing judge’s weight given to factors)