13-2268
United States v. Spencer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 14th day of May, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13 Appellee,
14
15 -v.- 13-2268
16
17 ONTARIO SPENCER,
18 Defendant-Appellant.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: DAVID A. LEWIS, Federal
22 Defenders of New York, Inc., New
23 York, New York.
24
25 FOR APPELLEES: LAUREN HOWARD ELBERT (Susan
26 Corkery, on the brief), for
27 Loretta E. Lynch, United States
28 Attorney for the Eastern
1
1 District of New York, Brooklyn,
2 New York.
3
4
5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
6 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.).
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
10 AFFIRMED.
11
12 Ontario Spencer appeals from a judgment of the United
13 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
14 (Townes, J.), convicting him of escape from custody, in
15 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Spencer argues the
16 district court’s sentence was substantively and procedurally
17 unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
18 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
19 presented for review.
20
21 We review sentences for reasonableness, United States
22 v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam),
23 which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion,” see
24 United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008)
25 (en banc). This concept applies to both “‘the sentence
26 itself’ and to ‘the procedures employed in arriving at the
27 sentence.’” United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 127
28 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d
29 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2006)). “The procedural inquiry focuses
30 primarily on the sentencing court’s compliance with its
31 statutory obligation to consider the factors detailed in 18
32 U.S.C. § 3553(a), while the substantive inquiry assesses the
33 length of the sentence imposed in light of the § 3553(a)
34 factors.” Id. (internal citations, brackets, and quotation
35 marks omitted).
36
37 The court appropriately considered all of the
38 information before it, including the submissions made on
39 Spencer’s behalf. Indeed, the arguments presented by
40 Spencer influenced the decision to sentence him at the
41 bottom of the Guidelines range. We conclude that the
42 district court did not abuse its discretion in its
43 sentencing decision.
44
2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
2 Spencer’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
3 the district court.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
7
8
9
10
3