United States v. Daniels ( 2013 )

12-1925-cr
United States v. Daniels
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 26th day of March, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 CHESTER J. STRAUB,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 12-1925-cr
17
18 RASHEED DANIELS,
19 Defendant-Appellant.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES E. LONG, Albany, New York.
23
24 FOR APPELLEE: PAUL D. SILVER (Robert A.
25 Sharpe, on the brief), Assistant
26 United States Attorneys, for
27 Richard S. Hartunian, United
28 States Attorney for the Northern
29 District of New York, Albany,
30 New York.
1
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED.
7
8 Rasheed Daniels, after pleading guilty to one count of
9 conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more
10 than 28 grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of
11 cocaine, was sentenced by the United States District Court
12 for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) to 262
13 months’ imprisonment. He appeals the sentence, primarily
14 challenging his categorization as a career offender. We
15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
16 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
17
18 Daniels argues that his 1994 youthful offender
19 adjudication in New York, for the sale of crack cocaine,
20 should not be counted as an adult felony to support his
21 classification as a career offender (resulting in a higher
22 Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months). This argument is
23 foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.
24 2005).
25
26 To the extent that Daniels argues that the district
27 court should have departed from the career offender
28 Guidelines range, we review the district court’s
29 determination for an abuse of discretion. But “[a] district
30 court’s refusal to depart downward is generally unreviewable
31 on appeal, unless its action falls within a few narrow
32 exceptions to the general rule,” for example, if the court
33 mistakenly believes it does not have authority to make a
34 departure. United States v. Duverge Perez, 295 F.3d 249,
35 255 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). The
36 district court considered Daniels’s arguments for a downward
37 departure, but found that Daniels’s extensive criminal
38 history justified the enhancement. Daniels presents no
39 evidence that the district court abused its discretion in
40 declining to depart downward, or that the court mistakenly
41 believed it lacked authority to do so.
42
2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
2 Daniels’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
3