United States v. Scott
684 F. App'x 20
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Melkuan Scott pled guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥280g crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
- District court sentenced Scott principally to 156 months’ imprisonment and seven years’ supervised release.
- At sentencing the court considered a 2008 incident in which a duffle bag containing eight firearms was found behind Scott’s house; the prosecution’s evidence linked the bag to Scott by DNA and a July 24, 2008 statement attributed to him; no charges resulted from that incident (they were nolled).
- Scott objected, arguing the 2008 incident was too remote and unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore should not be considered in sentencing.
- The district court overruled the objection but expressly noted it would treat the conduct narrowly given that no charges were filed; it found the government met its preponderance burden that the guns were Scott’s.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the sentence for reasonableness and affirmed, holding the district court did not clearly err in considering the 2008 firearms evidence and that the 156‑month sentence (100 months below the Guidelines range) was procedurally reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by considering the 2008 duffle bag of guns at sentencing | Government: evidence of the duffle bag and guns was relevant to weapon possession and linked to Scott by DNA and his statement; court may consider any pertinent information about background/behavior | Scott: the incident was too remote, charges were nolled, and the evidence did not satisfy the preponderance standard—so it should be excluded from sentencing | Court: no clear error — district court permissibly considered the evidence, government met preponderance with DNA and statement, and the court reasonably limited consideration given nolled charges; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (booker remedial holding on advisory Guidelines and sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court discretion to impose Guidelines or non-Guidelines sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion explained)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (reasonableness standard applies to both sentence and procedures)
- United States v. Carmona, 873 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1989) (broad discretion to consider varied information at sentencing)