United States v. Park
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Park pled guilty to one count of filing a false corporate tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).
- PSR: Park diverted cash, understated gross receipts, and underpaid payroll taxes in 2004–2005; tax loss about $133,601.
- Guidelines range: 15–21 months based on prior fraud convictions and tax loss.
- Sentencing occurred during the 2013 government shutdown; district court declined imprisonment due to financial pressures.
- District court sentenced Park to 3 years probation (including 6 months home confinement) with Park bearing confinement costs; government appealed.
- Court vacated the sentence and remanded for plenary resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing solely on government shutdown costs was error | United States argues the court erred by relying on an impermissible factor. | Park contends no improper factor/ cost-based consideration was used. | Yes; error to rely on improper factor and to neglect §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether cost of imprisonment is a valid §3553(a) factor | United States maintains cost is not a listed factor and cannot justify imprisonment. | Park argues costs can be considered. | Yes; cost of imprisonment is not within §3553(a) factors and cannot justify imprisonment. |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable | United States asserts the district court failed to meaningfully apply §3553(a) and relied on improper reasons. | Park argues the court would have imposed imprisonment absent shutdown concerns. | Yes; sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable; vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corsey v. United States, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (procedural review of §3553(a) factors; standard sentencing framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness standard in sentencing; combination of procedure and substance)
- Cavera v. Rhie, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive review; parsimony principle)
- Wong v. United States, 127 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 1997) (cost of imprisonment not a §3553(a) factor)
- Tapia-Romero v. United States, 523 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2008) (cost considerations and deterrence in sentencing)
- Jones v. United States, 531 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits on considering cost as a sentencing factor)
- Rigas v. United States, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion/§3553(a) framework)
- Sindima v. United States, 488 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2007) (interpretation of procedural/substantive reasonableness)