Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0795-01.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. Rodney THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-2970-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 22, 2010.
    Joyce C. London, Joyce C. London, P.C. (Michael A. Young, of counsel), New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Andrew L. Fish, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stein, J.), which sentenced Appellant after a remand by this Court to 140 months imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. See United States v. Thomas, 273 Fed.Appx. 103 (2d Cir.2008). Appellant invokes this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, requesting that we set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court as unreasonable and remand the case for a new sentencing proceeding. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Appellant’s sole argument in the instant appeal is that his sightless condition renders his sentence substantively unreasonable. This argument is unpersuasive. ■ At the new sentencing proceeding on remand below, pursuant to the principles enunciated in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Judge Stein explicitly and specifically considered Appellant’s blindness, weighing it against, inter alia, Appellant’s prominent role in the underlying criminal conspiracy. Balancing these factors, Judge Stein reduced the original sentence from 180 to 140 months.

In the absence of procedural error, this Court reviews sentences for substantive reasonableness under the standard of “abuse of discretion.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). By that standard, Judge Stein’s decision to significantly lower the original sentence, albeit without reducing it to the mandatory minimum, cannot be said to be unreasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.