United States v. Shaday
685 F. App'x 45
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Yova Kana Shaday pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- District court sentenced Shaday to 24 months imprisonment (within the Guidelines range) and 10 years supervised release.
- Probation and the district court calculated the supervised-release Guidelines range as three years to life.
- The government conceded the Guidelines calculation was incorrect: the correct Guidelines term is a fixed five years because the statutory minimum (5 years) controls under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c).
- Shaday did not object to the Guidelines calculation at sentencing; the appellate court reviewed the error for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court miscalculated the supervised-release Guidelines range | Government did not contest that the court adopted Probation’s calculation (3 years–life) | Shaday argued the proper Guidelines range is a fixed 5‑year term because statutory minimum controls | Held: Court found a miscalculation — correct Guidelines term is a fixed five years, so error occurred |
| Whether the miscalculation warrants relief under plain‑error review | Government argued no plain error or that any error was harmless | Shaday argued the error was plain, affected substantial rights, and requires remand | Held: Plain error found; no clear indication the same supervised‑release term would have been imposed; vacated that part of sentence and remanded for resentencing on supervised release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McIntosh, 753 F.3d 388 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for sentences includes procedural and substantive review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural error in Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.) (plain‑error standard when defendant did not object)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (Sup. Ct.) (four‑part plain‑error test)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness probability standard for incorrect Guidelines ranges)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (miscalculated Guidelines range undermines § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Mandell, 752 F.3d 544 (2d Cir.) (harmless‑error inquiry for sentencing mistakes)