Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0318-01.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. Joseph D. THORPE, Defendant-Appellant.
    15-2742
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 30, 2016
    For Appellant: Lisa A. Peebles (with Gene V. Primomo & Melissa A. Tuohey on the brief), Office of the Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, New York,
    For Appellee: Rajit S. Dosanjh (with Wayne A. Myers on the brief) for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Joseph D. Thorpe appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.), sentencing Thorpe to four months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release stemming from Thorpe’s violation of supervised release already imposed in conjunction with his conviction and sentence for selling crack cocaine. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

1. Thorpe contends that the district court inadequately explained its rationale for subjecting Thorpe to a three-year term of supervised release. Thorpe raises this argument for the first time on appeal; it is accordingly reviewed for plain error, meaning that there must be an error, the error must be “‘clear or obvious,”’ the error must have “ ‘affected the appellant’s substantial rights,’” and the error must seriously affect “ ‘the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009)). Thorpe has not met this exacting standard, given the pre-sentencing colloquy between the district court and Thorpe, and the “minimal” nature of a district court’s obligation to explain a supervised release component of a sentence that is within the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012).

2. Thorpe argues that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. Challenges to the reasonableness of a sentence are reviewed under an “‘abuse-of-discretion standard’”; substantive unreasonableness “provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless 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. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 114, 123 (quoting United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Because of Thorpe’s repeated failures to comply with conditions of supervision, the three-year term of supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Thorpe’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.