United States v. Joseph Kozicki
679 F. App'x 505
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Kozicki pleaded guilty to defrauding the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1031).
- Presentence report calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 30–37 months; the government requested 30 months.
- Kozicki, suffering from multiple serious medical conditions (including coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure), asked for probation with no jail time.
- The district judge sentenced Kozicki to 15 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release (well below the Guidelines range), and issued a written recommendation that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) place him in a facility that could accommodate his medical needs—later amended to recommend placement in Southern California near his doctors.
- Kozicki appealed, arguing procedural error (the judge improperly dictated his place of incarceration) and that the 15‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable and risky given his health. The judge also corrected a clerical omission under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to reflect her oral recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by "dictating" defendant's place of incarceration | Kozicki: judge impermissibly dictated housing by directing where BOP should place him | Government/judge: court only made a recommendation about facility placement; BOP retains decisionmaking authority | No procedural error—the court’s statements were recommendations, which it may make; BOP retains final authority |
| Whether the 15‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable given Kozicki's health | Kozicki: 15 months risks his death in custody and is unreasonable for a nonviolent offender | Government: sentence is below the Guidelines range and justified; court considered health but balanced equity and disparity concerns | Not substantively unreasonable—review for abuse of discretion; below‑range sentence presumed reasonable and 15 months was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (sentencing court may recommend place of confinement but BOP decisionmaking authority remains)
- United States v. Annoreno, 713 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2008) (courts have not treated below‑range sentences as unreasonably high)
Affirmed.