905 F.3d 672
2d Cir.2018Background
- Igor Katsman pleaded guilty in EDNY (2010) to charges from a fraudulent check-cashing scheme; initially sentenced to 84 months, later resentenced to 120 months (2012).
- Katsman cooperated with SDNY prosecutors in unrelated matters (proffers 2013–2015), pleaded guilty in SDNY (Feb 11, 2015), and received a time-served sentence after substantial assistance and testimony at two trials.
- EDNY and SDNY had a joint cooperation agreement where the government promised to file a Rule 35(b) motion in EDNY if Katsman provided substantial assistance.
- The USAO-EDNY moved under Rule 35(b) to reduce Katsman’s EDNY sentence (Jan. 29, 2016; renewed June 7, 2016). The EDNY court initially denied the motion in a minute entry (July 12, 2016).
- On remand from this Court for explanation, the district court issued a sealed opinion explaining denial: it found Katsman had provided substantial assistance but declined to reduce because Katsman already benefited in SDNY, had lied to the court, continued criminal activity while on pre-sentencing release, and §3553(a) factors supported keeping 120 months.
- Katsman appealed, arguing the district court conflated the two-step Rule 35 analysis and improperly considered §3553(a) factors; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court conflated the two-step Rule 35(b) analysis | Katsman: court merged inquiry whether assistance was "substantial" with what reduction is warranted | Government: court recognized substantial assistance then assessed reduction amount | Court: No conflation; court found Katsman provided substantial assistance, then properly proceeded to step two |
| Whether a court may consider 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors when deciding extent of a Rule 35(b) reduction | Katsman: §3553(a) should not factor into the Rule 35(b) reduction decision | Government: Rule 35(b) is discretionary; court may consider other factors including §3553(a) when determining reduction | Court: Permitted. Rule 35(b) uses "may," allowing discretion; §3553(a) factors may inform extent of reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing two-step Rule 35 inquiry)
- United States v. Park, 533 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing consideration of §3553(a) in Rule 35 context)
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (rejecting view that Rule 35 limits court discretion to consider post-sentencing changes)
- United States v. Katsman, [citation="551 F. App'x 601"] (2d Cir. 2014) (prior Second Circuit summary order affirming Katsman’s sentence)