United States v. Isa

13-2568-cr
USA v. Isa
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 14th day of April, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13 Appellee,
14
15 -v.- 13-2568-cr
16
17 NIDAL ISA,
18 Defendant-Appellant.*
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: LAURIE S. HERSHEY, Manhasset,
22 New York.
23
*
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the
caption as above.
1
1 FOR APPELLEE: LEE RENZIN, Assistant United
2 States Attorney, Of Counsel
3 (Michael A. Levy, Assistant
4 United States Attorney, Of
5 Counsel, on the brief), for
6 Preet Bharara, United States
7 Attorney for the Southern
8 District of New York, New York,
9 New York.
10
11 Appeal from a sentence of the United States District
12 Court for the Southern District of New York (Bricetti, J.).
13
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
16 AFFIRMED.
17
18 Nidal Isa appeals from a judgment of conviction entered
19 on June 18, 2013, sentencing him chiefly to 36 months’
20 imprisonment. He challenges the procedural and substantive
21 reasonableness of the sentence. We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
23 history, and the issues presented for review.
24
25 Isa pleaded guilty on September 10, 2012 to a four-
26 count indictment: conspiracy to distribute and possess with
27 intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine,
28 as well as other controlled substances, in violation of 21
29 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (Count One); conspiracy to possess a
30 chemical precursor to one drug with intent to manufacture a
31 controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846
32 (Count Two); conspiracy to transport individuals in
33 interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in
34 prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2421 (Count
35 Three); and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344
36 (Count Four).
37
38 At sentencing, the parties ultimately agreed that Isa’s
39 Sentencing Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. The
40 mandatory minimum of 60 months on Count One was obviated by
41 sufficient findings of the district court, which ultimately
42 imposed a 36-month sentence, roughly half of his Guidelines
43 range, to adequately account for Isa’s relative culpability
44 and adjustments made to the Guidelines calculation at the
45 sentencing hearing.
46
2
1 We review criminal sentences deferentially, for
2 reasonableness only. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
3 38, 51 (2007) (“The fact that the appellate court might
4 reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was
5 appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the
6 district court.”). “Reasonableness review requires an
7 examination of the length of the sentence (substantive
8 reasonableness) as well as the procedure employed in
9 arriving at the sentence (procedural reasonableness).”
10 United States v. Johnson, 567 F.3d 40, 51 (2d Cir. 2009).
11 The standard of review for both inquiries is abuse of
12 discretion. United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 127
13 (2d Cir. 2008).
14
15 Procedural Reasonableness. “A district court commits
16 procedural error where it fails to calculate (or improperly
17 calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the
18 Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the
19 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on
20 clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the
21 chosen sentence.” United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22,
22 38 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
23
24 Isa argues the district court erred in not departing
25 from a Category III criminal history to a Category II under
26 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1).1 “‘[A] refusal to downwardly depart
27 is generally not appealable,’ and . . . review of such a
28 denial will be available only ‘when a sentencing court
29 misapprehended the scope of its authority to depart or the
30 sentence was otherwise illegal.’” United States v. Stinson,
31 465 F.3d 113, 114 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting
32 United States v. Valdez, 426 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2005)).
33 “In the absence of ‘clear evidence of a substantial risk
34 that the judge misapprehended the scope of his departure
35 authority,’ we presume that a sentence judge understood the
36 scope of his authority.” Id. (quoting United States v.
37 Gonzalez, 281 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2002)).
1
Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) a “downward
departure” may be warranted if “the defendant’s criminal
history category substantially over-represents the
seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the
likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes.”
“We have called this a ‘horizontal departure,’ as it results
in a move from right to left on the sentencing grid.”
United States v. Ingram, 721 F.3d 35, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2013)
(internal citation omitted).
3
1 Nothing in the record suggests that the district court
2 failed to understand its authority to grant the requested
3 departure. Rather, the record indicates that the district
4 court considered Isa’s request for a downward departure and
5 cited “specific reasons” for rejecting it on the merits.
6 Ingram, 721 F.3d at 39; see Tr. of Sentencing at 19-21, June
7 11, 2013 (concluding, after a thorough review of Isa’s
8 lengthy criminal history, that “I’m not going to downwardly
9 depart from Category III, because I really don’t think,
10 under these facts, that it’s fair to conclude that Category
11 III overstates his criminal history”). We therefore reject
12 Isa’s claim of procedural error.
13
14 Substantive Reasonableness. Finally, Isa challenges
15 his sentence as substantively unreasonable. “In reviewing
16 [a sentence] for substantive reasonableness, we consider the
17 totality of the circumstances, and reverse only in
18 exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision cannot be
19 located within the range of permissible decisions[.]”
20 United States v. Mason, 692 F.3d 178, 181 (2d Cir. 2012)
21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
22 standard “provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that,
23 although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the
24 administration of justice because the sentence imposed was
25 shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable
26 as a matter of law.” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108,
27 123 (2d Cir. 2009).
28
29 Isa’s principal argument is that he should not have
30 received the same 36-month sentence as Firas Yousef.
31 However, the parity in sentences does not “shock the
32 conscience.” Isa and Yousef were not found guilty of
33 similar conduct; the scope of Isa’s criminal conduct was far
34 broader than Yousef’s; and Yousef was convicted only of a
35 single count of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and a
36 single count of attempted use of a fraudulent medical
37 prescription.
38
39 In any event, Isa’s claim is wholly meritless.
40 Yousef’s Guidelines range (51 to 63 months) was far lower
41 than Isa’s (70 to 87 months). Although they both received a
42 36-month sentence, Isa enjoyed a greater variance (in
43 relative and absolute terms) from the applicable Guidelines
44 range. In short, Isa was treated with the greater leniency
45 that he claims to merit.
46
4
1 Ultimately, the record shows that the district court
2 thoughtfully considered all of the relevant sentencing
3 factors Isa presented, such as his battles with substance
4 abuse, in light of the seriousness of his offenses of
5 conviction and his (lengthy) criminal history. After doing
6 so, the district court imposed a sentence well below the
7 advisory Guidelines range and the otherwise applicable
8 mandatory minimum. Based on our review of the record, we
9 cannot conclude that that sentence is substantively
10 unreasonable.
11
12 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
13 Isa’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the
14 district court.
15
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
18
5