United States v. Lutchman
910 F.3d 33
2d Cir.2018Background
- Emanuel L. Lutchman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) for plotting a New Year’s Eve 2015 knife/machete attack in Rochester, NY, and pled allegiance to ISIL in a recorded martyrdom video.
- Lutchman coordinated with an ISIL contact online and with three supposed co-conspirators, two of whom and a third contact were FBI cooperators; he purchased masks, knives, a machete, zip ties, duct tape, ammonia, and gloves.
- Arrest occurred immediately after filming the pledge video; Lutchman admitted facts in a plea agreement and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months’ imprisonment and 50 years supervised release.
- Plea agreement included an appellate waiver of rights to appeal any sentence ≤ 240 months; Lutchman appealed arguing (1) the waiver was unenforceable for lack of consideration; (2) procedural error in denying a 3-level § 2X1.1(b)(2) reduction (attempted but not completed offense dependent on government assistance); and (3) substantive unreasonableness because of his mental illness.
- The Second Circuit severed the unenforceable waiver and reviewed the merits, affirming the district court: (a) the waiver lacked consideration and was not enforced; (b) denial of the § 2X1.1(b)(2) reduction was proper and, in any event, would not have changed the sentence because the Guidelines range still exceeded the statutory maximum; (c) the statutory maximum sentence was substantively reasonable given public-safety concerns and Lutchman’s post-sentencing conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate waiver | Waiver unenforceable because plea conferred no benefit beyond pleading guilty without agreement | Government: waiver valid as part of plea bargain | Waiver unenforceable — agreement gave Lutchman no new consideration; court severed the waiver and reached merits |
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(2) (attempt/abandoned conspiracy reduction) | Lutchman: conspiracy depended on government agents; he was not "about to complete" the offense, so 3-level reduction required | Government/district court: defendant’s conduct brought the substantive offense close to fruition despite infiltration | Denial affirmed — (1) conduct showed offense near fruition; (2) even if applied, resulting Guidelines range still exceeded statutory maximum, so no effect on sentence |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentencing | Error in Guidelines calculation and denial of reduction made sentence procedurally unreasonable | District court properly calculated and explained sentence; considered § 3553(a) factors | No procedural error — court adequately explained rationale and would have imposed same sentence |
| Substantive reasonableness given mental illness | Lutchman: mental illness mitigates and 240-month sentence is greater than necessary | Government/district court: mental illness considered, but combined with violence/substance abuse made maximum necessary to protect public | Sentence substantively reasonable — within permissible range and supported by district court’s reasoned findings; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir.) (plea waivers not absolutely enforceable; construed against government)
- United States v. Riggi, 649 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (apply contract principles to plea agreements but tempered by fairness concerns)
- United States v. Brunetti, 376 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (guilty plea can be challenged for lack of consideration)
- United States v. Rosa, 123 F.3d 94 (2d Cir.) (plea benefits include certainty of liability and sentencing)
- United States v. Goodman, 165 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (refusing to enforce appeal waiver where defendant received little benefit)
- United States v. Downing, 297 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.) (§ 2X1.1(b)(2) focuses on whether conspiracy reached substantial completion)
- United States v. Medina, 74 F.3d 413 (2d Cir.) (section 2X1.1 looks to defendant’s conduct, not probability of success after infiltration)
- United States v. Bermingham, 855 F.2d 925 (2d Cir.) (no need to resolve guideline disputes if same sentence would result)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (reasonableness review and deference to district court)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness on review)
- United States v. Desnoyers, 708 F.3d 378 (2d Cir.) (legal application of Guidelines reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.) (procedural error definition in sentencing review)
- United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir.) (assessing whether sentence falls within permissible range)