United States v. Thomas Simmons, III
670 F. App'x 19
2d Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Thomas Simmons III was sentenced after the district court revoked his supervised release for committing two Grade B violations and one Grade C violation following an evidentiary hearing.
- Violations occurred about six months after release: Simmons traveled to Massachusetts in violation of release conditions, committed credit-card fraud on two occasions, lied to police, and fled when officers attempted to apprehend him.
- The Probation Office prepared a Violation Worksheet calculating an advisory Guidelines range of 21–27 months for the supervised-release violations.
- The district court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment followed by a six-year term of supervised release; Simmons appealed.
- On appeal, Simmons argued (1) the district court failed to state reasons for its sentence and (2) the sentence was substantively excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to state reasons for the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) | Government: No reversible error; court relied on Probation Office recommendation and findings from hearing | Simmons: Court did not adequately articulate reasons for sentence in open court | No plain error. Reliance on well-supported Probation Office Violation Worksheet and factual findings cured the failure to state additional reasons |
| Whether the 24-month prison term was substantively unreasonable | Government: Sentence is within advisory Guidelines and reasonable given violations | Simmons: Sentence was excessive | Affirmed. 24 months falls within the 21–27 month advisory Guidelines range and is not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinoza v. United States, 514 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (failure to state reasons is not plain error when court relies on adequately supported PSR)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence)
- Townsend v. United States, [citation="371 F. App'x 122"] (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (court may rely on Probation Office materials for sentencing rationale)
- McNeil v. United States, 415 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2005) (reasonableness is the standard of review for supervised-release revocation sentences)
- Eberhard v. United States, 525 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2008) (Guidelines sentences are often within the broad range of reasonable sentences)
- Fernandez v. United States, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognition that Guidelines sentences generally fall within reasonable range)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Guidelines reflect a rough approximation of sentences that achieve § 3553(a) objectives)
- Thavaraja v. United States, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting uncertainty whether plain-error or abuse-of-discretion review applies to unpreserved substantive-reasonableness challenges)