United States v. Reese

13-2899 United States v. Reese 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 9th day of June, two thousand fourteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 United States of America, 13 Appellee, 14 15 -v.- 13-2899 16 17 John Reese, 18 Defendant-Appellant. 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 FOR APPELLANT: Lisa A. Peebles (James P. Egan, 22 on the brief), Federal Public 23 Defender, Syracuse, New York, on 24 submission. 25 26 FOR APPELLEES: Paul D. Silver (Lisa M. 27 Fletcher, on the brief), for 28 Richard S. Hartunian, United 1 1 States Attorney for the Northern 2 District of New York, Albany, 3 New York, on submission. 4 5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 6 Court for the Northen District of New York (Hurd, 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 John Reese appeals from the judgment of the United 13 States District Court for the Northen District of New York 14 (Hurd, J.), revoking Reese’s supervised release and 15 sentencing him to 9 months’ imprisonment, followed by a life 16 term of supervised release. Reese challenges the imposition 17 of lifetime supervised release on the grounds that the court 18 (1) failed to adequately explain the reason for the sentence 19 and (2) abused its discretion. We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 21 history, and the issues presented for review. 22 23 1. Reese’s claim that the district court did not 24 adequately explain the reasons for his sentence, raised for 25 the first time on appeal, is reviewed for plain error. 26 United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2013). 27 28 The district court, “at the time of sentencing, shall 29 state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the 30 particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “Where, as 31 here, the sentence concerns a violation of supervised 32 release and the ultimate sentence is within the recommended 33 range, compliance with the statutory requirements can be 34 minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d 35 Cir. 2012). Upon review of the record, the district court 36 sufficiently explained that the violation occurred less than 37 one year after Reese’s release from prison, Reese had “lied 38 on a number of occasions,” and Reese “refus[ed] to accept 39 the situation.” A-122. 40 41 2. Reese argues that the district court abused its 42 discretion in imposing supervised release for life because 43 this term far exceeded the statutory maximum prison term 44 authorized for the underlying offense. 45 46 We review a sentence imposed for violating a condition 47 of supervised release under “the same standard as for 2 1 sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is 2 reasonable.” United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 277 (2d 3 Cir. 2005). We “set aside a district court’s substantive 4 determination only in exceptional cases where the trial 5 court’s decision cannot be located within the range of 6 permissible decisions.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 7 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks 8 and emphasis omitted). 9 10 A life term of supervised release has been found 11 reasonable where, as here, such a term was “recommended 12 under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Hayes, 13 445 F.3d 536, 537 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that such a 14 recommendation supports, but does not necessitate, a 15 determination of reasonableness). Moreover, “[d]istrict 16 courts are permitted . . . to hedge against a relatively 17 lenient term of imprisonment by imposing a longer term of 18 supervised release.” United States v. Leon, 663 F.3d 552, 19 556 (2d Cir. 2011), cert denied, 132 S. Ct. 1777 (2012) 20 (quotation marks and original brackets omitted). Here, 21 Judge Hurd considered imposing the statutory maximum prison 22 term of two years because Reese had violated the terms of 23 his supervised release in his first year out of prison, 24 Reese displayed a defiant attitude while under supervision, 25 and Reese had been untruthful about his conduct. However, 26 after considering Reese’s mitigating circumstances, the 27 district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of nine 28 months’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised 29 release. This sentence was reasonable and within the 30 court’s discretion. 31 32 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 33 Reese’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of 34 the district court. 35 36 FOR THE COURT: 37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 38 3