United States v. Reginald Cooper, 675 F. App'x 67

Cooper pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a felony drug-trafficking offense (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)).
Plea agreement stipulated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 24–30 months’ imprisonment.
The district court accepted the Guidelines calculation but imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 42 months and one year of supervised release.
District court explained the upward variance by citing Cooper’s extensive criminal history and perceived disrespect for the law.
Cooper appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence	Gov’t: District court adequately explained reasons for upward variance	Cooper: Court failed to provide specific reasons for deviating from Guidelines	Affirmed — court provided explanations at hearing and in written Statement of Reasons
Substantive reasonableness of sentence length	Gov’t: Sentence justified by criminal history and sentencing objectives	Cooper: Sentence greater than necessary; cites median/mean sentences for similar offenses	Affirmed — sentence within permissible range given history; not shockingly high

United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing appeals)
United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.) (de novo review of legal questions; clear-error for facts)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence and deviations)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must explain deviations from Guidelines)
United States v. Park, 758 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (substantive reasonableness standard—permissible range of decisions)
United States v. Douglas, 713 F.3d 694 (2d Cir.) (affirming that shockingly high/low sentences undermine administration of justice)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (examples of sentences that are unsupportable as a matter of law)