United States v. Nelson, 591 F. App'x 37

Defendant Dion Nelson convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for unlawful use and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
District court sentenced Nelson to 25 years' imprisonment, exceeding the Sentencing Guidelines recommendation of 10 years.
Nelson appealed, arguing statutory, procedural, and substantive unreasonableness of the 25-year sentence.
Key procedural issue: district court did not explicitly acknowledge in open court that it was imposing an above-Guidelines sentence.
The written Statement of Reasons incorrectly indicated the sentence was within the Guidelines and failed to explain the above-Guidelines justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether "not less than 10 years" limits sentence to exactly 10 years	U.S.: Sentence within statutory range may exceed 10 years	Nelson: statutory text/legislative history and lenity require exactly 10 years	Held: 25 years is permissible because it is "not less than 10 years"; prior panel precedent controls
2. Whether district court violated § 3553(c) by failing to explain an above-Guidelines sentence in open court	U.S.: court provided ample justification in proceedings	Nelson: court failed to state reasons on the record for above-Guidelines sentence	Held: Error was plain but harmless; no reversal because it did not seriously affect fairness
3. Whether the Statement of Reasons' inaccuracies require vacatur	U.S.: inaccuracies can be corrected	Nelson: written form incorrectly states within-Guidelines and lacks justification	Held: Remand for limited purpose to correct the Statement of Reasons (government does not oppose)
4. Whether 25-year sentence is substantively unreasonable	U.S.: sentence justified by Nelson's criminal history	Nelson: 25 years is excessive	Held: No abuse of discretion; sentence not substantively unreasonable given record

United States v. Farmer, 583 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2009) (statutory "not less than" language permits sentences above the minimum)
Gelman v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 495 (2d Cir. 2004) (panel precedent binds later panels)
United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review applies to unpreserved § 3553(c) claims)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (U.S. 2010) (four-part plain-error standard)
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (limited remand for corrected Statement of Reasons)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive-reasonableness backstop concept)