United States v. Latulas, 21-1792-cr

Latulas was convicted at trial of Hobbs Act conspiracy and Hobbs Act robbery (Counts One and Two) and a § 924(c) firearms offense (Count Three); original aggregate sentence was 216 months (96 months concurrent on Counts 1–2, plus 120 months consecutive on Count 3).
On direct appeal his convictions were affirmed; a later successive § 2255 was permitted based on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and Latulas’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated.
The district court ordered de novo resentencing on the two remaining counts, adopted the updated PSR (total offense level 27, CHC V, Guidelines 120–150 months), and imposed an upward variance to 200 months to run concurrently.
The district court justified the variance on two main grounds: (1) the Guidelines (post-Davis) understate the seriousness of the offense, and (2) deterrence and protection of the public given Latulas’s violent criminal history, lack of remorse, and recent threatening communications to a government witness in March 2021.
Latulas appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness (including that the court relied on the original sentence, disregarded Guidelines and § 3553(a), and improperly treated his exercise of trial rights as aggravating); the Second Circuit affirmed the 200-month sentence.

Issue	Latulas's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of resentencing	District court began with original 2015 sentence, ignored Guidelines and § 3553(a), and failed to account for vacated § 924(c)	Court properly adopted updated PSR and Guidelines, considered § 3553(a), and explained variance	Affirmed — no procedural error; court used PSR/GUIDELINES and explained variance
Consideration of exercise of constitutional/trial rights	Court improperly treated his trial, testimony, and silence as aggravating	Court relied on perjured testimony and conduct, not mere invocation of rights	Affirmed — record shows court permissibly considered false testimony and related conduct
Reliance on defendant’s recent conduct (threatening messages)	Messages not a proper basis for upward variance; lack of record support	Messages were recent, threatening, supported by sealed submissions and PSR; show danger/recidivism risk	Affirmed — district court’s factual findings on threats not clearly erroneous and independently justify 50‑month variance
Substantive reasonableness of 200‑month sentence	Upward variance is excessive and departs from co-defendants’ sentences without justification	Variance based on defendant’s violent history, lack of remorse, and recent witness threats; disparity with co-defendants not required to be reconciled	Affirmed — sentence falls within permissible range; at least one sufficient justification (threats/danger) supports variance

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated the residual clause of § 924(c), permitting collateral challenge)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review standard; appellate review for reasonableness)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (an appellate court may uphold a variance if at least one ground provides independent justification)
United States v. Singh, 877 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2017) (deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for substantive unreasonableness review)
United States v. Alcius, 952 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2020) (district court need not consider or explain sentencing disparities among codefendants)