United States v. Redeye
690 F. App'x 27
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Roy S. Redeye pleaded guilty to two counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce and was sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment.
- Plea agreement included an appeal waiver and acknowledged the court could independently calculate the Guidelines range.
- At plea colloquy, prosecutor and judge made comments about sentencing expectations; defendant later argued those created a reasonable expectancy of a 37‑month cap.
- The sentence imposed was within the Sentencing Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum of five years.
- The presentence investigation report documented a significant criminal history and suggested possession of child pornography, which the district court considered in imposing a high‑end Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice / Reasonable expectancy of sentence | Government: plea and colloquy made clear court could calculate Guidelines; no misleading promise | Redeye: prosecutor and judge comments + plea waiver created reasonable expectancy of ≤37 months; Labbe requires notice when expectancy frustrated | Court: No error. Plea and colloquy disclaimed firm promise; sentence within Guidelines and below statutory max, so no Labbe relief |
| Substantive reasonableness | Government: within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Redeye: 38 months unreasonably harsh given offense (drunken Facebook posts) | Court: Sentence not substantively unreasonable given criminal history and PSR allegations; deferential review upholds sentence |
| Procedural reasonableness / explanation | Government: court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and explained basis | Redeye: district court’s explanation was minimal and insufficient | Court: No procedural error; judge commented on criminal history and child‑pornography possession as reasons for high‑end Guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Labbe, 599 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2010) (reasonable‑expectancy rule where sentencing statements create expectation that is later frustrated)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive‑reasonableness standard; court need not parse every §3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (U.S. 2010) (plain‑error framework for unpreserved sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Pattee, 820 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2016) (procedural error where court fails to adequately explain chosen sentence)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (procedural‑reasonableness standards for sentencing explanations)