United States v. Nelson, 597 F. App'x 17

Defendant Darnele Nelson pleaded guilty to possession of unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3).
Sentencing was in the Western District of New York before Judge Arcara; Nelson received a 36‑month prison term within the Guidelines range.
Nelson argued for a lower sentence, in part because actual victim loss was less than the loss amount used for Guidelines calculation (citing U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 note 3(F)(i)).
The district court stated it had considered the advisory Guidelines range, counsel’s and the parties’ submissions, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Nelson appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of sentence	Government: sentence procedurally sound because court considered Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors	Nelson: court failed to explicitly address argument about lower loss amount and thus did not adequately consider his sentencing arguments	Court held sentence procedurally reasonable; presumes judge considered properly presented arguments and record shows consideration of submissions and § 3553(a) factors
Substantive reasonableness (length of sentence)	Government: 36 months within Guidelines is reasonable and supported by § 3553(a) analysis	Nelson: 36 months is greater than necessary given lower actual victim loss and other mitigation	Court held substantive sentence reasonable; no exceptional circumstances shown to render within‑Guidelines sentence unreasonable

United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that sentencing judge considered properly presented arguments when record shows consideration)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (discussing appellate review of within‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Ingram, 721 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2013) (within‑Guidelines sentences typically fall within the range of reasonable sentences)