14‐301
United States v. Allen
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
‐v.‐ No. 14‐301
LEWIS ALLEN, AKA CHOC,
Defendant‐Appellant.
____________________________________________
The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to amend the caption as set forth above.
FOR APPELLANT: Charles S. Hochbaum, Charles S. Hochbaum, P.C.,
Brooklyn, NY, for Defendant‐Appellant Lewis Allen
AKA Choc.
FOR APPELLEE: Jessica A. Masella, Brian A. Jacobs, Assistant United
States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New
York, NY.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Crotty, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
Defendant‐Appellant Lewis Allen (“Allen”) appeals from a judgment of
conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York following his guilty plea to one count of using a firearm to commit
murder during and in relation to a drug trafficking conspiracy. We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on
appeal.
The District Court sentenced Allen to 360 months’ imprisonment. He
argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the District Court
2
failed to reduce it by time Allen had already served in connection with a prior
federal conviction for participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy.
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we do not
“substitute our own judgment for the district court’s on the question of what is
sufficient to meet the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) considerations in any particular case.”
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing United States v.
Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir. 2006)). Rather, this Court “set[s] aside a
district court’s substantive determination only in exceptional cases where the trial
court’s decision ‘cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.’”
Id. (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 238 (2d Cir. 2007)). Here, the
District Court found Allen’s prior conviction to be for a separate crime and
arrived at his sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors set
forth under Section 3553(a); we do not find Allen’s sentence to be substantively
unreasonable.
3
We have considered all of Allen’s remaining arguments and find them to
be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of
the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4