Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Reginald COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-468
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    January 30, 2017
    For Defendant-Appellant: Matthew Daniel Myers, Myers, Singer & Galiardo, LLP, New York, NY.
    For Appellee: Michael Gerber, Amanda Houle, and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Of Counsel, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Judge Margo K. Brodie, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Reginald Cooper appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) sentencing Cooper to 42 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release on the charge of using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Cooper pled guilty to this charge pursuant to a plea agreement stipulating that the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines range was 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. The district court, accepting this calculation of the Guidelines range, imposed an above-Guidelines sentence. On appeal, Cooper argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the procedural history and facts of this case.

“We review sentences for abuse of discretion, a standard that ‘incorporates de novo review of questions of law (including interpretation of the [Sentencing] Guidelines) and clear-error review of questions of fact.’” United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102, 108 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470, 474 (2d Cir. 2008)). First, Cooper contends that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not provide specific reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. “A district court commits procedural error where it ... fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence,” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc), and such an explanation “must include ‘an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.’ ” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Here, the district court did, in fact, explain the reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, both at the sentencing hearing and in the written Statement of Reasons attached to the judgment. The district court focused, in particular, on Cooper’s extensive criminal history, which, in the district court’s view, manifested “disrespect of the law.” A. 32. Therefore, we reject Cooper’s procedural reasonableness challenge to his sentence.

Second, Cooper claims that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing. Cooper cites, for example, recent data on the median and mean sentences for communication facility offenses. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it is “outside the range of permissible decisions,” United States v. Park, 758 F.3d 193, 200 (2d Cir. 2014) (per cu-riam), so that “affirming it Svould ... damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.’ ” United States v. Douglas, 713 F.3d 694, 700 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009)). Here, nothing about Cooper’s sentence placed it “outside the range of permissible decisions,” Park, 758 F.3d at 200, especially in light of Cooper’s criminal history. As a result, we reject Cooper’s substantive reasonableness challenge to his sentence.

We have considered all of Cooper’s remaining arguments and find in them no basis for altering our decision. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.