United States v. Robert Darin Crute, 700 F. App'x 73

Robert Darin Crute pleaded guilty in 1993 to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and received 188 months plus five years supervised release; while incarcerated he assaulted a corrections officer with scalding water and received an additional 96 months.
Crute was released to supervised release in December 2013 after ~20 years in prison.
In 2015 he pled guilty to two supervised-release violations (state possession of cocaine and possession of a loaded weapon). The district court initially miscalculated his criminal history as Category VI, imposed five years, and this Court vacated and remanded.
On resentencing the Guidelines range (with criminal history Category IV) was substantially lower; defense sought a 20‑month Guidelines sentence.
Judge Irizarry imposed a 48‑month sentence (an upward variance from the Guidelines but one year less than the original erroneous 60‑month term), citing Crute’s extensive criminal history, recidivism, the prison assault, firearms involvement, and the court’s view that Category IV underrepresented his true history.
Crute appealed, arguing the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s upward variance was procedurally reasonable	Gov: district court adequately explained reasons tied to §3553(a) and post‑conviction conduct	Crute: court failed to provide a reasoned basis for the upward variance	Held: Procedurally reasonable—court explained reliance on §3553(a) factors, post‑sentence conduct, and justification for upward departure/variance
Whether the upward variance was substantively reasonable	Gov: given recidivism, serious prison assault, firearms and drug conduct, 48 months was within discretion	Crute: sentence was greater than necessary and excessive relative to Guidelines	Held: Substantively reasonable—sentence not outside range of permissible decisions; no abuse of discretion

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of appellate review for sentencing reasonableness; abuse of discretion framework)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must consult Guidelines but may impose non‑Guidelines sentences; review for reasonableness)
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (advisory nature of Guidelines and sentencing discretion)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive-reasonableness relief limited to rare, exceptional cases)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements; consideration of substantive factors)
United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (presumption that judge considered statutory factors; no requirement of formulaic recitation)
United States v. Cawley, 48 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1995) (upward departure may account for offenses committed after the federal sentence that gave rise to supervision)