United States v. Mangone, 652 F. App'x 15

Anthony Mangone, a convicted defendant, appealed his sentence imposed by the Southern District of New York, arguing procedural sentencing errors and seeking reassignment on remand.
The district court relied on an incorrect Sentencing Guidelines range (stated as 37–46 months) based on an error in the presentence report; the correct range for offense level 19, CH I is 30–37 months.
Neither the government nor defense counsel caught the erroneous Guidelines range at sentencing; neither objected, so appellate review is for plain error.
The district judge made strongly worded comments about Mangone’s crimes and criticized the plea/charging decisions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, prompting Mangone’s request that resentencing be assigned to a different judge.
The Second Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the Guidelines miscalculation was plain procedural error and not shown to be harmless; it declined to order reassignment of the case to a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court miscalculated Guidelines range	Mangone: court used incorrect range (37–46) affecting sentence	Gov’t: conceded error and consented to remand	Court: miscalculation was plain error; correct range is 30–37; vacated and remanded
Whether sentencing error was harmless	Mangone: error likely affected sentence outcome	Gov’t: argued remand appropriate; no clear harmlessness	Court: not clear error was harmless; remand required per Molina‑Martinez standard
Whether other alleged factual misstatements/procedural errors require resentencing	Mangone: multiple factual mischaracterizations and procedural mistakes	Gov’t: did not defend those errors on appeal given Guidelines error	Court: declined to decide remaining arguments because remand warranted for the Guidelines error
Whether reassignment to a different judge is warranted on remand	Mangone: judge’s remarks showed personal bias and misunderstanding of charging policies; request reassignment	Gov’t: judge’s comments intemperate but not showing disqualifying bias; misunderstanding can be addressed on remand	Court: reassignment denied; remarks did not show the special circumstances needed for reassignment; judge can fairly resentence with correct range

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review at sentencing)
United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.) (plain‑error review when sentencing objection omitted)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (miscalculated Guidelines range can affect substantial rights; remand standard)
United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (incorrect Guidelines calculation can taint non‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (Guidelines range as starting point; miscalculation undermines §3553(a) analysis)
United States v. Awadallah, 436 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (standards for reassignment on remand)
United States v. Brennan, 395 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (reassignment is unusual; requires special circumstances)
Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (visceral judicial comments may justify reassignment in some cases)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Sup. Ct.) (judicial remarks ordinarily do not establish disqualifying bias)