United States v. Renz
670 F. App'x 13
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Donald Renz was sentenced federally to 57 months: 33 months for using a counterfeit access device (18 U.S.C. § 1029) and 24 months for aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
- Renz was also serving a 41-month state sentence for violating state parole based on possessing a credit card–making machine.
- At federal sentencing Renz asked that the federal sentence run concurrently with his state parole-violation sentence, arguing the state sentence punished the same misconduct as the federal counterfeit-access-device charge.
- The District Court rejected that argument, finding the state and federal convictions punished different conduct and declining to impose a concurrent sentence merely because the federal offense occurred while Renz was on parole.
- The District Court stated it considered § 3553(a) factors and the Sentencing Guidelines commentary (U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n.4(C)).
- Renz appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing the consecutive-sentencing decision for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal sentence must run concurrently because it punished the same misconduct as the state parole-violation sentence | Gov: Sentences punish different misconduct; consecutive sentence permissible | Renz: State sentence for possessing card-making machine is the same misconduct as his federal counterfeit-access-device offense, so sentences should be concurrent | Held: Different misconduct; District Court did not clearly err in finding offenses distinct; consecutive sentence allowed |
| Whether the District Court erred by refusing to give Renz a “reward” (concurrent sentence) because he was on parole when federal misconduct occurred | Gov: District Court properly refused to impose concurrency solely because misconduct occurred on parole | Renz: District Court improperly based decision on not wanting to “reward” him | Held: Court’s comment reasonably read as refusing concurrency solely because defendant was on parole; no legal error |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentence | Gov: District Court considered § 3553(a) and guidelines commentary | Renz: Decision was erroneous (either factually or legally) | Held: No abuse of discretion; decision within permissible range after considering factors |
| Whether factual finding that state and federal offenses differ was clearly erroneous | Gov: State guilty plea was for possession of card-making machine; federal plea for using a counterfeit access device | Renz: Claims overlap such that they are the same conduct | Held: Finding not clearly erroneous — offenses distinct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matera, 489 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for district court sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Brady, 417 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2005) (defines abuse of discretion and when a district court exceeds it)
- Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2001) (standards for review of discretionary decisions)
- United States v. Lagatta, 50 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1995) (upholding district court refusal to impose concurrent sentence to avoid giving defendant a "free ride")