16-2630
United States v. Griffin
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 12th day of June, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 Circuit Judges,
9 GEORGE B. DANIELS,*
10 District Judge.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 16-2630
17
18 GREGORY GRIFFIN, AKA Meeshack,
19 Defendant-Appellant.**
20
21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
22
*
Judge George B. Daniels, United States Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
**
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official
caption to conform to the caption above.
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: Melissa A. Tuohey, for Lisa A.
2 Peebles, Federal Public Defender
3 for the Northern District of New
4 York.
5
6 FOR APPELLEE: Steven D. Clymer, for Richard S.
7 Hartunian, United States
8 Attorney for the Northern
9 District of New York.
10
11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
12 Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.).
13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
14 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
15 AFFIRMED.
16 Gregory Griffin appeals from the judgment of the United
17 States District Court for the Northern District of New York
18 (Mordue, J.) imposing, in relevant part, a sentence of 27
19 months’ imprisonment after his plea to violations of his
20 conditions of supervised release. We assume the parties’
21 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
22 history, and the issues presented for review. We affirm
23 because the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence was
24 neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
25 Griffin argues that the district court failed to
26 adequately explain the reasons for its sentence. He did not
27 preserve this procedural objection, and so we review it for
28 plain error. United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 253 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2015), as amended (July 22, 2015). Further, when
2 imposing a within-Guidelines sentence for violation of
3 supervised release, a district court’s compliance with the
4 sentencing explanation requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)
5 “can be minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186,
6 192 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 25, 2012). While the
7 district court’s explanation was indeed minimal, Griffin
8 failed to show (as he was required to do) that any lack of
9 explanation “prejudicially affected his substantial rights,”
10 United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477, 481 (2d Cir. 2013).
11 As to Griffin’s substantive challenge to his 27-month
12 sentence, the within-Guidelines sentence was not “so
13 shockingly high . . . or otherwise unsupportable as a matter
14 of law that allowing [it] to stand would damage the
15 administration of justice.” Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 255
16 (internal quotation marks omitted). It was therefore
17 substantively reasonable.
18 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
19 Griffin’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
20 the district court.
21
22
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
25
3