United States v. Moore, 712 F. App'x 93

Defendant Kevin Moore, Sr. convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment.
Sentence fell within the Guidelines range calculated in the Presentence Report; the parties did not dispute the PSR's criminal-history calculation.
Moore argued the 78-month term was substantively unreasonable because the district court overweighted his criminal history and failed to account for all 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The district court expressly considered § 3553(a) factors: Moore’s childhood abuse, substance abuse and mental-health issues, treatment motivation, and a period without arrests, as well as his prior convictions for robbery, burglary, and violent acts.
The district court emphasized public-protection concerns and the need for a sentence "sufficient but not greater than necessary." The court imposed 78 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore’s 78-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Government: sentence within Guidelines and justified by need to protect public and Moore’s criminal history	Moore: district court failed to account for all § 3553(a) factors and overemphasized his criminal history	Affirmed — sentence is substantively reasonable; district court considered § 3553(a) and its weighing was within permissible discretion

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness is abuse of discretion and appellate deference to district court’s weighting)
United States v. Ryan, 806 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2015) (district-court substantive determinations reversed only in exceptional cases outside permissible range)
United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (appellate review standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Ingram, 721 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2013) (Guidelines sentences typically fall within the broad range of reasonable sentences)