United States v. Kestenbaum, 552 F. App'x 74

Kastenbaum appealed after amended judgments sentencing him to three years for probation violation in the E.D.N.Y.
He contends he violated restitution payments by willful nonpayment and made false statements to the government under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
He challenges the standard of proof, arguing violations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The district court calculated and considered the Guidelines range for the probation violation (4–10 months) and also considered the original offense range (108–135 months).
The court resentenced mindful of breach of probation and original offense, and entered written statements of reasons.
The court inadvertently omitted an attachment to the April 2013 judgment, prompting remand to memorialize the sentencing reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused its discretion in finding probation violation	Kestenbaum argues the findings were clearly erroneous.	The government contends the court properly weighed the evidence.	No reversible error; findings not clearly erroneous; support probation violation.
Whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for probation violations	Kestenbaum asserts beyond-reasonable-doubt standard is required.	Government relies on standard that reasonable satisfaction suffices.	Precedent allows reasonable satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether sentence is procedurally reasonable	Kestenbaum argues sentencing process lacked adequate explanation.	Government contends explanation was sufficient given circumstances.	Procedurally reasonable; explanation satisfactory under standard.
Whether sentence is substantively reasonable	Kestenbaum contends three-year term is too harsh given factors.	Court found range appropriate given original offense and violations.	Sentence within permissible range; not substantively unreasonable.

United States v. Lettieri, 910 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1990) (probation violation standard: reasonable satisfaction suffices)
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (sentencing on revocation mindful of original offense range)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (procedural reasonableness in sentencing and factors)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc; reasonableness review standard)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness framework)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain error review when not preserved)
United States v. Green, 618 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (plain error/standard of review considerations)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (explanation requirement for sentences)
United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2008) (scale of review for sentencing decisions)
United States v. Iodice, 525 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) (clear error standard for factual findings)