15-2742
United States v. Thorpe
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 30th day of June, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13 Appellee,
14
15 -v.- 15-2742
16
17 JOSEPH D. THORPE,
18 Defendant-Appellant.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: Lisa A. Peebles (with Gene V.
22 Primomo & Melissa A. Tuohey on
23 the brief), Office of the
24 Federal Public Defender,
25 Syracuse, New York.
26
27 FOR APPELLEE: Rajit S. Dosanjh (with Wayne A.
28 Myers on the brief) for Richard
1
1 S. Hartunian, United States
2 Attorney for the Northern
3 District of New York, Syracuse,
4 New York.
5
6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
7 Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.).
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
11 AFFIRMED.
12
13 Joseph D. Thorpe appeals from the judgment of the
14 United States District Court for the Northern District of
15 New York (Hurd, J.), sentencing Thorpe to four months’
16 imprisonment and three years of supervised release stemming
17 from Thorpe’s violation of supervised release already
18 imposed in conjunction with his conviction and sentence for
19 selling crack cocaine. We assume the parties’ familiarity
20 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the
21 issues presented for review.
22
23 1. Thorpe contends that the district court
24 inadequately explained its rationale for subjecting Thorpe
25 to a three-year term of supervised release. Thorpe raises
26 this argument for the first time on appeal; it is
27 accordingly reviewed for plain error, meaning that there
28 must be an error, the error must be “‘clear or obvious,’”
29 the error must have “‘affected the appellant’s substantial
30 rights,’” and the error must seriously affect “‘the
31 fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
32 proceedings.’” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262
33 (2010) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
34 (2009)). Thorpe has not met this exacting standard, given
35 the pre-sentencing colloquy between the district court and
36 Thorpe, and the “minimal” nature of a district court’s
37 obligation to explain a supervised release component of a
38 sentence that is within the range recommended by the
39 Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d
40 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012).
41
42 2. Thorpe argues that the three-year term of
43 supervised release is substantively unreasonable.
44 Challenges to the reasonableness of a sentence are reviewed
45 under an “‘abuse-of-discretion standard’”; substantive
46 unreasonableness “provide[s] a backstop for those few cases
47 that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless
2
1 damage the administration of justice because the sentence
2 imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise
3 unsupportable as a matter of law.” United States v. Rigas,
4 583 F.3d 108, 114, 123 (quoting United States v. Cavera, 550
5 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Because of
6 Thorpe’s repeated failures to comply with conditions of
7 supervision, the three-year term of supervised release was
8 not substantively unreasonable.
9
10 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
11 Thorpe’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
12 the district court.
13
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
16
3