United States v. Eric Jones

Rico, Puerto Hotels of America, STATES 15(a) UNITED Cir.2004). in rele

(1st provides Rule Appellant, may amend party that “a part vant ... leave of court only by pleading party’s jus freely given when be leave shall JONES, Defendant-Appellee. Eric 15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. requires.” so tice Docket No. 05-2289-CR. deni However, “a district court’s although an may constitute chance to amend al of a Appeals, United States Court justifica sufficient no abuse of discretion Second Circuit. court need not ... a district appears tion Argued: Jan. 2006. amend, come what every request grant Arrillaga-Be may.” Correa-Martínez Aug. 2006. Decided: (1st Cir.1990), léndez, over by Educadores grounds ruled on other Hernández, en Acción v.

Puertorriqueños Cir.2004). (1st Although 61, 66 the district claims that

he now opportunity one even [him]

“failed to allow require particularity comply 9(b),” note that

ments of Fed.R.Civ.P. fraudu properly pled have could

Epstein has complaint. in his He concealment

lent sug arguments

alleged no new facts have would that an amendment

gest slightest. in the his case

strengthened

Critically, “[w]here we have held futile or would serve would be

amendment the district court legitimate purpose,

no needlessly prolong matters.”

should

Correa-Martínez, find F.2d at 59. We of discretion.

no abuse

III. reasons, we affirm the foregoing

For the are the district court. Costs

decision of appellee. to the

awarded

Affirmed. Atty., protection. police Roch- his arrested Jones Baczynski, Asst. U.S.

Steve (Michael -Battle, Atty., ester, A. U.S. for violation of state law. Nine months N.Y. brief), Rochester, N.Y., Appel- on the matter taken over federal later the lant. authorities, grand jury in- federal of being dicted on count a felon Jones one Johnson, Asst. Federal Mendez

Roxanne firearms, in Rochester, possession of violation of 18 Defender, (Jay N.Y. Ovsiov- S. brief), counsel, Appellee. the for itch, 922(g)(1), pos- on one of and count of U.S.C. mari- session of “a amount” of detectable WALKER, Judge, Chief Before 844(a). juana, violation of KATZMANN, Circuit NEWMAN and on a previously Jones had been convicted Judges. posses- of criminal guilty plea attempted in the third NEWMAN, sion a controlled substance Judge. Circuit degree impris- and to six sentenced weeks’ appeal a sentence the Govern- This years’ probation. onment and five He was (1) whether three issues: presents ment discharged probation April from 2002. adequate Judge provided District the a non-Guidelines imposing for explanation pleaded guilty In November Jones below pursuant plea to the firearms count to a for appellate review rea- range permit that agreement specifying agreed sonableness, (2) so, if whether the sentence then-mandato- range under the (3) reasonable, so, and whether was After ry Guidelines 30-37 months. to include the judgment must be corrected United States Supreme Court decided Judge’s for the sentence. District reasons Booker, 220, 125 543 U.S. S.Ct. 5, 2005, April judg- appeal The 12, 2005, (2005), January L.Ed.2d 621 of the Court for the Western ment District indicated that it would the District Court (David Larimer, York G. District New accept plea in Jones’s case with Judge), sentencing Defendant-Ap- District stipulated sentencing range of 30-37 primarily Eric to 15 months’ pellee Jones hearing At a in March months.' that the Dis- imprisonment. We conclude Judge that he consid- Larimer indicated Judge’s statement of reasons for trict oral In anticipation harsh. ered that too forth on the record was the sentence set reasonable, sentence, the sentence is lenient Jones withdrew adequate, that of more the reasons but that failure include guilty to both guilty plea pleaded his and judgment in the violates for the sentence counts. 3553(c)(2) requires correc- 18 U.S.C. end Sentencing occurred affirm judgment. We therefore tion that Judge March. Larimer noted sentence, remand for correction of but 3(L applicable sentencing range remained judgment. mat- months. He then mentioned two First, “troubling.” he found

Background ters that past unemployed for the Jones had been Rochester, arose pending case when month, representation of contrary York, police Sep- New arrested Jones currently he that was his defense counsel barbershop 2004 in the where he tember Second, positive tested employed. Jones bags marijua- five They worked. found sentencing. marijuana day on the for na and three firearms. Jones admitted Court, ex- by the Jones Upon inquiry drugs and the that he was the owner his em- his work for current plained which for at least one of he said was guns, (2d Cir.2005); ployer sporadic Crosby, and that he did some was Cir.2005). left part-time not “on Booker work their 3553(c) “unimpaired.” Crosby, 397 marijuana section acknowledged Jones books.” use, F.3d at 116. lawyer which his attributed stress stemming in his life from the recent death challenges The Government of his father. Judge imposing Larimer’s reasons Government, hearing from After de- two essentially non-Guidelines sentence on counsel, Jones, Judge fense Larimer First, grounds. the Government contends explained thinking prompted him that relied upon, several the reasons to give a non-Guidelines sentence. Initial- education, notably the Defendant’s emo ly, acknowledged he condition, the seriousness employment tional rec favorable offenses, in especially prior view ord, family support, good on and record state conviction. then referred drug He probation state are factors that the Sen factors that he to count considered tencing concluded “or Commission has are Jones’s These included a favor. “consis- “in dinarily” determining not relevant ethic,” support tent work Jones’s of his departure whether a is warranted.” See son, wife and his and support assistance (education); §§ 5H1.2 U.S.S.G. 5H1.3 family, (emotional for other members of his his recent condition); (employment 5H1.5 father, attempt loss of at college, his his record); ties); (family (prior 5H1.6 5H1.11 adjustment “very good positive” works). his and good By citing the Guidelines’ probation, state and the fact that Jones standards, however, departure the Govern supervised would be on release for three ment appreciate post- fails to that Jones’s years “prepared have and would to be for Booker sentence is not a Guidelines depar a much if stiffer sentence” he violated ture; it is a non-Guidelines sentence. See supervised Judge candidly release. The Crosby, at 111 n. 9. With the acknowledged that part thinking of his entire Guidelines scheme rendered adviso “I explainable: just gut not feeling had ry Supreme by the Court’s decision you”; about “I still have the sense that Booker, the Guidelines limitations on capable doing Eric Jones is much bet- permit departures use of factors to no are Finally, Judge ter.” Larimer noted that binding sentencing judges more than he had considered all of the sentencing ranges calculated Guidelines them 3553(a) factors under 18 U.S.C. and the course, sentencing selves. judge’s Of applicable guideline and was “convinced obligation Guidelines, to “consider” the see a non-guidelines ap- that sentence here is 3553(a)(4), along 18 with the oth propriate.” Judge imposed Larimer a sen- 3553(a), er relevant factors listed in section imprisonment, tence of 15 months’ followed Canova, see United States v. F.3d years supervised three release. (2d Cir.2005), obligation includes the consider the Commission’s relevant policy Discussion statements as well as the calculated Guide Sufficiency I. of the Reasons for a But range. lines “consideration” does not

Non-Guidelines Sentence mandatory mean adherence. Booker, sentencing After judge misconception re- The Government’s con- obligated open mains “to state in cerning poli- the force of the Commission’s imposition particular cy-statements reasons for its of the limiting departures is illus- 3553(e); sentence.” 18 U.S.C. see trated Unit- its reliance on decisions of this Lewis, ed States v. 244-45 Court the Supreme rendered before undoubtedly is familiar judge Brief for See in Booker. decision Court’s penalty by Congress authorized (citing maximum Appellant (2d Cir.1994), and Unit- that that a Mora, proportion maximum 22 F.3d 409 and Stevens, 192 judge reflects. The particular ed Cir.1999)). the calculated Guide- also aware both im- typically lines the sentences and challenges Second, the Government in the for misconduct of posed subjec expression Larimer’s Judge comparable seriousness. to the thinking his component of tive non- Judge Larimer’s reasons' for the sen a non-Guidelines appropriateness notes, imposed, sentence he even Judge Guidelines tence. As Government “ordinarily” grounds pre-Booker for a had sense” Larimer said he in- departure though and doing even capable better Jones is subjective part by assess- about We fluenced his “gut feeling” he had a Jones. Defendant, criticism, too, fails to appreciate adequate ment of the are think this sentencing judge’s scope support post-Booker of a his conclusion the enhanced world of advi post-Booker appropriate discretion non-Guidelines sentence was sentencing Although Jones, satisfy sory they Eric suffice to Guidelines. of the obliged to consider all judge statutory is to state “the requirement in section sentencing factors outlined imposition of the [the court’s] reasons for 3553(c). 3553(a), prohibited judge § sentence.” 18 U.S.C. particular judge’s in that including consideration just a fair and sen II. of the Non-Guide-

own of what is Reasonableness sense That is all circumstances. lines under Sentence tence sentencing judges, role historic challenge recently a reviewed We exercised, subject to may it continue to be sentence, alleged to be to a non-Guidelines authority to reviewing court’s ultimate unreasonable, v. Fairc in United States reject that exceeds any sentence (2d Cir.2006). In 439 F.3d 76 lough, bounds of reasonableness. as un challenged a Fairclough, defendant months, a of 48 which reasonable sentence that, explaining It is true after his higher top 21 than the was months non-Guidelines particular for reasons range. approving In Judge impose, calculated Guidelines he intended sentence sentence, was which as to the non-Guidelines gave specific no articulation Larimer Government, defended appropriate vigorously why 15 months was ‘“ i.e., “reasonableness” emphasized that punishment, why the sen we amount meaning, than, concept of flexible months, say, inherently 14 15 rather tence was ” boundaries,’ id. lacking precise impose generally months. decline to We 115), Crosby, 397 F.3d at (quoting for at 79 specific such articulation requirement “ exhibit ‘should im that a reviewing months of an of the exact number of ” reasonableness, id. in assessing appropri restraint’ posed an sentence. Selection Fleming, in inevitably (quoting United States punishment amount of ate “ (2d Cir.2005)), ‘we subjectivity that F.3d degree some volves ... encountering circumstances anticipate In precisely explained. cannot be often un of a [warranting rejection sentence light of the sort identified of the reasons ” (quot id. at 80 Larimer, infrequently,’ has sentencing judge reasonable] Judge 100), that we Fleming, at ultimately ing 397 F.3d se many guideposts available “ rules as to any per se The would not ‘fashion punishment. an amount of lecting every the reasonableness of sentence with- at one which possessed least for protection. in an applicable guideline or the unreason- every ap- an ableness sentence outside III. Omission Reasons from the guideline,’” plicable (quoting Crosby, id. Judgment Written 115). The Sentencing Reform Act con case, In pending the sentence of 15 provisions concerning tains three a sen months is 15 months less than the bottom tencing obligation court’s the rea state range. of the calculated Guidelines In First, sons for sentence. the court must Fairclough, the non-Guidelines sentence all impo cases state “the for reasons top 21was months above the of the calcu- particular sition of the sentence.” If range. lated are to be 3553(c). Second, if the sentence per- deferential when the Government applicable is within an Guideline judge suades a district render a non- months, judge that exceeds must Guidelines sentence somewhat above the state reason for imposing range, similarly we must be particular point range.” at a within the deferential when a persuades defendant 3553(c)(1). Third, Id. if the sentence is judge to render non-Guidelines outside an range, Guideline sentence somewhat below the Guidelines judge specific must state “the reason range. Obviously, the discretion that imposition a sentence different” sentencing judges Booker im- accords prescribed by from that the Guideline pose non-Guidelines sentences cannot be 3553(c)(2). range. Compliance Id. only goes up. escalator that requirements, all three applicable, course, any Of particular ease a sen- must “at sentencing” be made the time of tence, against assessed even the flexible 3553(c). open and “in court.” Id. Com reasonableness, might standard of be so pliance with the require second and third far above below Guidelines and ments, applicable, must “also be explained by so inadequately the sentenc- specificity stated with in the written order ing judge require rejection as to on appeal. judgment and commitment.” Id. But we to continue believe that we will 3553(c)(2).1 We have ruled that the Su “ ‘eneounter[ ] such circumstances infre- preme in Court’s decision Booker left sec quently,’” Fairclough, 439 F.3d at 80 3553(c) “unimpaired.” tion See United 100), (quoting Fleming, 397 F.3d at and do Lewis, (2d 424 States v. F.3d not consider Jones’s sentence to be one of Cir.2005); United States v. Crosby, 397 those circumstances. 103, 116 (2d Cir.2005).

In case, pending that, the cannot say we pending case, In the as we have ruled for a defendant with above, Jones’s characteris- Judge Larimer provided the rec- background, tics and 15 months of impris- ord in open court sufficient statement onment for possession is unreasonable of a reasons for his non-Guidelines sentence to marijuana, detectable amount of reasonableness, even our permit review for though by possession guns, exacerbated thereby complying with require- the first 1. requirement including additional This is evident from fact that subsections 3553(c)(1) 3553(c)(1) 3553(c)(2) reasons for subsection and subsec- both "rea- refer to 3553(c)(2) tion judg- singular, sentences in the written son” in the require- but written ment 3553(c)(2) language contained within subsection ment of subsection uses itself, 3553(c)(2) requirement plural but the added to state that the "reasons” must be applies to judgment. sentences under both subsections. included in the 3553(c). However, appeal, the sentence considered on was ment of section imposed post-Booker. not included in id. of reasons was See statement judgment order of and commit- the written that, We have with respect concluded to ment, additionally required by subsec- like non-Guidelines sentence im- 3553(c)(2) for a sentence tion outside case, posed pending we should use range. That applicable Guidelines omis- remedy adopted and remand Goffi appro- requires sion consideration judgment comply amendment of to remedy. priate 3553(c)(2). with subsection With the Fuller, In F.3d 556 broader to sentencing discretion available United (2d Cir.2005), judges advisory ruled that non under the this Court Guidelines re- 3553(c)(2) Booker, gime helpful it will compliance generally with subsection did be (and Fuller require reviewing agencies not remand. Id. 567. in which the sen such as the pr was a e-Booker case Commission and Prisons) tence, appli judge’s the Bureau of to have though departure statement of imposed cable under the reasons for sentence out- guideline, guideline mandatory regime. conveniently More re side an Guidelines cently Goffi, judgment set forth the written order of in United States Court, Fuller, Cir.2006), again Although this consid commitment. case ering comply mandatory with decided under the a sentence did 3553(c)(2), regime, non- ruled that “the bet did not remand correct subsection 3553(c)(2), compliance subsection ter was to affirm the sentence but with course” case, non- pending “with instructions that Dis which involves a [the remand judgment advisory written sentence under Court] trict amend the Guideline 3553(c)(2).” regime, agree with 18 with comply Goffi Although n. that “the is to so Id. at 323. Goffi was better course” remand e-Booker, originally pr non-compliance sentenced his sen subsection 3553(c)(2)may probation, remedied.2 tence for violation of which was be 3553(c)(2)); pursuant Daychild, v. 357 2. We need not set the sentence aside United States 3742(f)(2)(B), 1082, (9th requires Cir.2004) (same); § to 18 U.S.C. which F.3d 1107-08 Orchard, 1133, upon appeal action a Government if such the United States v. 332 F.3d 1141 reviewing that (8th Cir.2003) court determines the sentence (same). 7 n. is “too low.” We have determined that the dissent, Judge suggests Walker that In Chief sentence, "reasonableness,” reviewed for is implicitly revising statutory we the are terms low,” that not "too and we twice stated a high” “too low” to mean "unreason- "too and appellate on to sentence deemed review be high” "unreasonably ably too and too low.” high” “too nor low” not neither "too need be disagree. statutory We terms as We take these non-compliance vacated for with subsection course, Congress we find Of when them. Fuller, 566; 3553(c)(2). F.3d at See 426 Unit- high is or refers to sentence that "too” Santiago, ed 36-37 384 low, "too” there has to be some benchmark Cir.2004) (stating “[u]nder in dicta that sub- against highness low- to assess the or which then, [3742](f)(2), it seems clear that section Booker, Supreme instruct- ness. In the Court ultimately we decide that a sentence is neither ed use as that bench- us to "reasonableness” (subsection (sub- (A)) high’ 'too nor 'too low' require mark. We that sentence be do (B)), any obligation section we do not have to high” "unreasonably "unreasonably too resentencing],” but [for remand nevertheless vacate sec- too low” before will it under remanding judgment). for correction of See 3742(f)(2); the we will vacate when sen- Cooper, tion also (3d Cir.2005) high” compared (declining tence is “too or "too low” to to be- 176 remand range non-compliance the of reasonableness. with subsection sentences within cause 198 (4) ing provision,

Conclusion and Sentencing the the understanding provi- Commission’s The sentence of the District Court is sion. affirmed, and the case is remanded with judg- 3742(f) instructions to amend the written § appropriate reading The to comply ment with 18 U.S.C. simply requires that non-Guidelines sen- 3553(c)(2). § tence above the be recommended Guide- range lines in to order be considered “too WALKER, JR., M. Judge, JOHN Chief high” and below the recommended Guide- dissenting: Thus, range lines to be “too low.” vacatur (1) majority required Because the “the district court relies non-bind- provide failed the ing precedent required that statement of misapprehends 18 3742(f), § judgment reasons and Sentencing U.S.C. Reform order com- (2) mitment,” provision, thereby per- Act’s vacatur and sentence is outside the (3) petuates fallacy applicable guidelines range,” that vacatur is not and appeal by was taken required where a district defendant and the court fails to sentence is “too it comply requirement high” that it in- that is above in the judgment applicable range clude Guidelines or the ap- written statement peal imposition government was taken reasons and the sentence outside the sentence “too low” that it is range, I below the join range. cannot the decision of the court. I U.S.C. 3742(f)(2)(A), (B); § respectfully dissent. see also id. 3553(c)(2). § majority upon The relies the reasoning Fuller, like enacted, cases United States v. originally As (2d Cir.2005), support Act provided Reform sepa- three proposition that long so reviewing rate criteria a reviewing before court was (1) court can declare a substantively compelled sentence vacate sentence: reasonable, it duty is not under a to set had to fall “outside the (2) aside sentence where a district court the applicable sentencing guideline”; it (3) fails comply writing “unreasonable”; with the require- had to be it had to 3553(c)(2). § ment codified at 18 high,” U.S.C. be “too the event defen- majority reaches low,” this result con- dant appealed, or “too in the event struing statutory high” government terms “too appealed. Sentenc- “too of art ing low”—terms associated with Reform Act of Pub.L. No. 98- vacatur, certain II, ch.2, governing 213(a), Stat.1987, subsections tit. (B) 3742(f)(2)(A), (codified 3742(e), mean that a 2012 at 18 U.S.C. later —to reviewing court must a declare sentence amended and recodified at U.S.C. “unreasonably 3742(f)). high” § too or “unreasonably The structure and un- purpose too low” before compelled it is to set dergirding yields aside this provision two conclu- that non-compliance First, sentence for with the sions. the overarching structure of requirement. writing majority the provision separate does vacatur treated as (a) despite this interpretation the fact that inquiries whether a sentence was “un- of (1) provision contrary (b) the vacatur is to reasonable” and whether it was “too the provision structure of the within high” the “too Accordingly, low.” Id. this (2) statutory scheme, congressional the against structure militates any reading of purpose writing the underlying require- the current that statute would conflate (3) ment, statutory Second, the history undergird- inquiries. these purpose the be- a court fails to a writ- the district issue complaining party to where linking the hind separate was a it left intact the cause for ing, the deviation of direction to sought departure a found to straightforward Congress one: vacatur where be party from receiv- complaining Act protect the unreasonable. See PROTECT an following 108-21, 401(c), ing a more adverse Pub.L. No. protective (codified In the absence this appeal. at 18 Stat. able scheme, appeals court of would be 3742(f)(2)) vacatur where (requiring unreasonably set aside sentence as to degree”). departure is to an “unreasonable defendant, though it was the low even non-compliance Any reading that excuses pursue to government, that chose the writing the where re- requirement with com- sentence. When appeal from that viewing court determines that a sentence the of these intended effect menting “unreasonably too nor “un- is neither low” the authors the Senate Com- provisions, reasonably high” superfluous too renders “that a sentence Report explained mittee separate inclusion of cause for the the upon 3742[] a section cannot be increased the court failed vacatur where district to S.Rep. the No. 98- appeal by defendant.” writing requirement. abide Under (1983), reprinted in 1984 anomaly reading, such face 3338. For same U.S.C.C.A.N. only being required to vacate for non- reason, could not be decreased a sentence compliance writing requirement with the govern- appeal by the upon a section already we must vacate for unrea- where that the “too id. This all ment. See Moreover, evaluating such sonableness. were meant high” provisions “too low” reasonableness, for we would a sentence no from there is hint either accomplish; lack the benefit of dis- (paradoxically) history they legislative the text or explaining court’s written statement trict standards were intended as substantive selecting sentence it its reasons the sentence. which to evaluate States v. impose. chose Cf. United statutory history subsequent From the Cir.2005) Lewis, 239, 246-47 3742(f) it likewise that when plain the writ- (holding non-compliance with Sentencing Congress amended the Reform requirement satisfied each of three ing give “require Act in 2003 courts plain analysis, error includ- components any departure specific written reasons for the error affected ing requirement guidelines,” Rep. H.R. Conf. No. rights defendant’s substantial because (2003), 108-66, in 2003 reprinted at 59 explanation lack of a written frustrates 683, 694, it intended to en- U.S.C.C.A.N. review). appellate requirement by sep- providing force that structure, purpose, and his- Even arate cause for vacatur where tory provision were incon- the vacatur the required court fails to include written meaning, we also have the clusive to its Prior to its judgment. statement Sentencing of the views benefit 3742(f) 2003, § already pro- amendment agency charged expert Commission—the appeals vacatur a court of vided for Reform implementing from the departure that a determined Sentencing Commis- Act’s mandates. The range was unreasonable. See 3742(f) require § to a 3742(f)(2) interpreted has sion (requir- § (Supp.2002) 18 U.S.C. sentence reviewing to “set aside the is ing vacatur where “the sentence outside specific instruc- the case with and un- and remand guideline range is applicable reasonable”). if it district court failed Congress amended tions finds When 3742(f) required statement rea- provide in for vacatur to provide § 2003 to judgment right ap-

sons in the and commitment or- from the Guidelines and the to Comm’n, peal. Sentencing Report der.” U.S. Congress: Departures Downward Jones’s sentence satisfies each of the 9, Sentencing From the Federal Guidelines (1) three vacatur: criteria for “the district (2003). 56-57 provide required court failed to state- ment of of judgment reasons the order court, majority, The Fuller and (2) commitment,” out- and sentence is interpreted other courts have these guidelines range,” side the provisions ignored have (3) appeal govern- taken understanding of, Commission’s and the ment and the sentence is “too low” in that structure, purpose, history undergird- it the applicable range. is below Guidelines ing, provision; they the vacatur have rea- 3742(f)(2)(B); 18 U.S.C. see also id. ultimately long soned “so as ‘we de- 3553(c)(2). result, As a required are high” cide that sentence is neither “too “set aside the sentence and remand the ..., ... nor “too low” we do have sentencing case for further proceedings.” any obligation to remand’ cases where 3742(f)(2)(B). §Id. court has provide district failed to already compelled by vacatur is Because separate explanation written [a] for de- writing, lack I would not reach the parture[]” or a non-Guidelines deviation. question of whether Jones’s sentence is Fuller, (quoting 426 F.3d at 566 dicta substantively two reasonable —for at least Santiago, 384 F.3d First, reasons. we should not rule on the (2d Cir.2004) curiam)); (per 36-37 ac- substantive reasonableness a sentence Cooper, cord United until we have had the benefit of the district Cir.2005); States v. United “specific” court’s written statement setting (9th Daychild, 1107-08 imposition its reasons for the aof Cir.2004); Orchard, United States v. sentence advisory “different from” the (8th Cir.2003). 1141 n. 7 sentence. on logic, Based this Fuller held that 3553(c)(2); Lewis, cf. 424 F.3d at 246- a departure permissible, where the ov- Second, 47. the substantive reasonable- erarching sentence high” cannot be “too ness of the question sentence is close Fuller, or “too low.” 426 F.3d at 556-67. only that should be decided it is neces- Today, majority extends this flawed sary to do so. I have difficulty accepting reading of the provision pro- vacatur the fact that a judge’s district “feelings”

vide that long so as a non-Guidelines de- support fifty percent can deviation from reasonable, viation is overarching sen- the low-end the recommended Guide- tence high” cannot be “too or “too low” course, lines range. majority Of as the and, thus, required. vacatur is not recognizes, the rules that we establish run Although, a panel, we lack author- My both directions. concerns would Fuller, ity to overrule per- we should not similarly in a exist case petuate reasoning extending flawed “feelings” judge’s resulted a sentence it to reach non-Guidelines sentences. fifty percent high-end more than the Nothing in- the terms “too low” or “too range. recommended Guidelines There high” is tied whether the sentence is no reason on propriety to rule of such substantively provi- unreasonable. These in imposing unfettered discretion a non- simply sions were provide intended to when there remains that, link between the nature remand, of the deviation the possibility the district reasoning in its terms will articulate 3553(a) fac- track the closely more court did like district tors —much Fairclough,

United curiam) (2d Cir.2006) (stating that (per felt that district court ‘na- inadequate to address the offense”). and circumstances’

ture

Instead, by this upholding below-Guide- reasonable, first without sentence as

lines reasons in

vacating adequate to obtain a return to the judgment, we invite

written ex- discretion

days wide-open sentencing disparity of both reduced

pense trend unhealthy This is an fairness. and defendants government

because sentencing as will come to view

alike informed which

arbitrary more exercise by the fac- assigned than judge 3553(a), public,

tors outlined will

including representatives, elected support perception

find evidence to

that, in courts are more home sentencing, the law. judicial wilfulness than court affirms this sentence

Because the Re-

as reasonable when vacatur, respectfully Act I compels

form

dissent. YORK, NEW Plaintiff-

The State of

Counter-Defendant-Appellant, INDUSTRIES,

NATIONAL SERVICE

INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant-

Appellee. No.

Docket 05-4706-cv. Appeals, Court of

Second Circuit. 10, 2006.

Argued: May 3, 2006. Aug.

Decided:

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Eric Jones

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Aug 2, 2006

Citation: 460 F.3d 191

Docket Number: Docket 05-2289-CR

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.