Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0087-01.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. John POLAK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-3182-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 29, 2009.
    Elizabeth S. Riker, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael C. Olmsted, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Andrew T. Baxter, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, N.Y. (on submission), for Appellee.
    Lisa A. Peebles, First Assistant Federal Public Defender (James P. Egan, on the brief), for Alexander Bunin, Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, N.Y. (on submission), for Defendant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. guido CALABRESI and Hon. DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant John Polak appeals from the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.) following the court’s revocation of Po-lak’s supervised release as a result of Po-lak’s admission that he violated that release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Polak argues on appeal that the sentence imposed by the District Court is unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to satisfy the goals of punishment and because it fails to address Polak’s serious drug addiction. This Court reviews for reasonableness a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release. United States v. Fleming, 397 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir.2005). We conclude that the District Court’s reasoning and sentence complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which governs revocation of supervised release. The District Court weighed appropriate considerations in arriving at its sentence, including the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and incorporated into § 3583(e), and the sentence imposed was “located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35, 47-48 (2d Cir.2006).

We have considered all of Polak’s claims and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.