United States v. Rosa
957 F.3d 113
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background
- From 2012–2015 Rosa participated in a scheme to obtain car loans fraudulently, including using others’ Social Security numbers; he pled guilty in March 2016 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
- The plea agreement included a restitution figure of $798,542.43; the PSR later described >35 fraudulent transactions totaling roughly $850,104 and calculated Guidelines with a total offense level of 26 and Criminal History II.
- At sentencing the court and parties agreed the PSR had improperly applied a § 3C1.3 enhancement; the court used an adjusted offense level of 23, producing a total Guidelines exposure of 75–87 months.
- The district court imposed 63 months on Count One plus a consecutive 24 months on Count Two (total 87 months) and announced restitution of $715,857.26, but gave no oral explanation for the sentence and did not adopt the PSR on the record.
- The written judgment and the court’s Statement of Reasons (SOR) (dated June 23, 2017) conflicted with the oral sentence and the PSR: the SOR erroneously checked adoption of the PSR, listed offense level 26 and a 70–87 range, and identified a different restitution amount; Rosa did not object at sentencing and appealed.
- The Second Circuit found the district court committed plain error under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) by failing to state reasons in open court and by issuing an SOR that did not cure the defect, and remanded for resentencing (vacatur and full resentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)’s requirement to "state in open court the reasons" for the sentence | Rosa: sentencing procedurally unreasonable because court gave no in-court reasons | Gov: court stated it considered §3553(a) factors; presumption the judge considered relevant factors suffices | Court: Failure to provide any in-court explanation violated §3553(c); bare statement of consideration was insufficient |
| Whether the written SOR or adoption of the PSR in writing cured the lack of an oral explanation | Rosa: SOR contained material inaccuracies and did not reflect the court’s oral decision; it cannot cure the defect | Gov: SOR (and PSR adoption) can supply missing explanation post hoc | Court: SOR was inconsistent with the oral sentence (wrong offense level, range, restitution, and incorrect PSR adoption) and therefore did not cure the error |
| Standard of review and whether plain error was shown | Rosa: plain error review applies (no objection below) and all four prongs are met | Gov: presumption of consideration and SOR/PSR adoption negate plain error | Court: Applied plain error; found error clear, affected substantial rights, and harmed fairness/integrity—all prongs satisfied |
| Appropriate remedy for the § 3553(c) violation | Rosa: requested vacatur and resentencing | Gov: (implicitly) supplemental explanation or correction might suffice | Court: Remanded for vacatur and full resentencing (Lewis approach) because the SOR’s conflicts create confusion, including restitution discrepancies |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (§3553(c) permits brevity but requires reasons to foster public confidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumption that judge considered §3553(a) factors and deference to district court sentencing judgments)
- United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2019) (district court must provide some oral account of reasoning; absence of explanation insufficient)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error analysis applies to unpreserved §3553(c) claims)
- United States v. Molina, 356 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2004) (written adoption of PSR can cure lack of in-court explanation when adequate)
- United States v. Zackson, 6 F.3d 911 (2d Cir. 1993) (remand for adequate statement of reasons where oral explanation deficient)
- United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2005) (remand with vacatur and full resentencing as appropriate remedy for procedural defect)
- United States v. Genao, 869 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2017) (minimal statements that do not explain contested calculations are inadequate)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (courts should avoid formulaic requirements but must provide reasoned sentencing explanations)