Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0030-01.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. David RINERE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-5134-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 5, 2013.
    
      Stephan J. Baczynski, Assistant United States Attorney for William J. Hochul Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.
    Mehmet K. Okay, The Okay Law Firm, Batavia, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges and JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jesse M. Furman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

This action commenced after defendant-appellant David R. Riñere (“Riñere” or “defendant”) was charged in a three-count indictment for conduct related to the production, receipt, and possession of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5)(B). On February 16, 2011, Riñere pleaded guilty before the District Court to one count of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and was subsequently sentenced to 228 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Riñere challenges his sentence arguing, inter alia, that the District Court committed procedural and substantive error.

We review all sentences using an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). Our review typically consists of a two-step process. First we “must ... ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[W]e then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reversing only when the trial court’s sentence cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we have considered all of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the November 30, 2011 judgment of conviction of the District Court.