United States v. Kessler
674 F. App'x 41
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Ricky Kessler appealed a ten-month prison sentence imposed after he pleaded to violating conditions of supervised release.
- The District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, C.J.) imposed a within-Guidelines sentence.
- Kessler raised procedural and substantive challenges to the sentence on appeal.
- He argued the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence, mistakenly believed he had not sought employment, and mistakenly believed he owed restitution.
- Kessler did not preserve his procedural objections, so this Court reviewed those claims for plain error.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error and that the within-Guidelines term was substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to explain reasons for sentence | Government: sentence was properly explained | Kessler: court did not adequately state reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) | Court: no plain error; explanation sufficient for supervised-release revocation within Guidelines (no detailed factor-by-factor recitation required) |
| Whether court erred by believing Kessler failed to seek employment | Government: factual view supported sentence | Kessler: court mistakenly blamed him for not seeking work | Court: even if mistaken, error was minor, unobjected to, not plain error |
| Whether court erred by believing Kessler owed restitution | Government: restitution belief did not taint sentence | Kessler: court sentenced on incorrect restitution belief | Court: Kessler corrected the record before sentencing and court acknowledged; no plain error |
| Whether ten-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Government: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Kessler: sentence shockingly high and unsupportable | Court: sentence within permissible range and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for plain-error review and substantive-reasonableness discussion)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (district court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor; standards for sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2012) (minimal compliance with § 3553(c) may suffice for supervised-release revocation sentences)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (noted again for range of permissible decisions and substantive-reasonableness standard)