United States v. Wilson
657 F. App'x 24
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Anas K. Wilson convicted of theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A); district court sentenced to 120 months on Count One (statutory max) and a mandatory consecutive 24 months on Count Two.
- District court calculated Guidelines for Count One as 168–210 months based on (1) a 16-level enhancement for intended loss > $1,000,000 and (2) a 6-level victim-related enhancement for use of >250 means of identification.
- At sentencing the court adopted the PSR, heard brief allocution and two family support letters (father and wife), then criticized those letters sharply on the record and threatened to send the transcript to the wife’s employer and to refer her for prosecution; the court later vacated its oral order and provided transcripts via the court instead.
- Wilson argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable: procedurally for the court’s conduct and alleged failure to consider § 3553(a) factors and for alleged Guidelines miscalculations; substantively as overly severe.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (procedural and substantive reasonableness) and for plain error on unpreserved procedural objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guidelines victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(2) (250+ victims) | Government: means-of-identification victims count regardless of pecuniary harm | Wilson: only the government was a victim; individuals whose IDs were used suffered no pecuniary harm and thus aren’t victims | Held: enhancement proper—Guidelines define victims to include any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully (victims count even without pecuniary harm) |
| Loss-amount enhancement (intended loss > $1,000,000 vs. $414,886) | Government: district court reasonably estimated intended loss > $1,000,000, including co-conspirator conduct | Wilson: lower loss figure applies; his conduct did not justify the higher enhancement | Held: district court’s >$1,000,000 loss finding was not clearly erroneous and is afforded deference for loss estimates |
| Procedural reasonableness based on sentencing court’s conduct | Wilson: court’s castigating of relatives, threat to refer wife for prosecution, and ordering transcript to her employer show procedural error and reliance on improper facts | Government: court reviewed PSR, considered materials, adopted PSR in open court; any conduct did not change reliance on statutory factors | Held: no plain procedural error—court adopted PSR and considered relevant materials; but court’s remarks toward relatives and threat to the wife were inappropriate though not reversible error here |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Wilson: sentence (144 months total) is substantively unreasonable (excessive) | Government: sentence below Guidelines for Count One and mandatory for Count Two is within permissible range | Held: sentence not substantively unreasonable—the within- or below-Guidelines placement falls within the broad range of permissible outcomes |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness review)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (procedural unreasonableness principles articulated)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguishes procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016) (adopting PSR in open court can cure lack of oral explanation on plain-error review)
- United States v. Jesurum, 819 F.3d 667 (2d Cir. 2016) (means-of-identification victims count for victim-based enhancements)
- United States v. Halloran, 821 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2016) (district court loss findings reviewed for clear error; sentencing findings by preponderance)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence and consider § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that judge considered statutory factors absent contrary record)
- United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (plain-error analysis where procedural objections are unpreserved)
- United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (Guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable)