We dir ectth e C ler k o f t he Cou rt to ame nd theof fic ial 1 cap tio n t o r efl ectth is spe lli ng of Sil ver io’ s n ame . 06-3614-cr USA v. Negron (Silverio)

1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTe rm, 20 07 6 7 (Ar gue d: Apr il 1, 200 8 Dec ide d: Apr il 24, 20 08) 8 9 Doc ketNo . 0 6-3 614 -cr 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 13 UNI TEDST ATE S O F AMER ICA , 14 15 App ell ee, 16 17 18 - v .- 19 2 0 JOSE NEGRON, RAFAEL GONZALES, ANGEL 2 1 MALDONADO, ALEXIS PRATTS, CHRISTIAN 2 2 SILVERIO, JOHN RODRIGUEZ, LIONEL 2 3 PINEIRO, 2 4 Defendants, 25 2 6 JULIO SILVERIO, 1 2 7 Defendant-Appellant 28 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 30 31 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, KEARSEan d P OOL ER, 32 Cir cui t Judg es. 33 34 Jul io Sil ver io app eal s f romanor derofth e U nit ed2 1 Sta tes Di str ictCo urtfo r t he Eas ter n D ist ric t o f N ew Yor k 2 (We ins tei n, J.) , d ecl ini ng to res ent enc e h im aft er a C ros by 3 remand . Sil ver io arg ues th at thedi str ictco urter redin 4 ref usi ng to con sid er thete rms ofa rej ect ed ple a o ffe r i n 5 whi ch thego ver nme nt hadof fer ed to rec ommenda low er 6 sen ten ce. F or thefo llo win g r eas ons , w e a ffi rm. 7 LAWRENCE MARK STERN, New York, 8 NY, for Defendant-Appellant. 9 1 0 JEFFREY H. KNOX, Assistant 1 1 United States Attorney (Susan 1 2 Corkery, Assistant United States 1 3 Attorney, on the brief), for 1 4 Benton J. Campbell, United 1 5 States Attorney for the Eastern 1 6 District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee. 17 18 19 PERCU RIAM: 2 0 Julio Silverio appeals from an order entered on August 2 1 2, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern 2 2 District of New York (Weinstein, J.), declining to 2 3 resentence him after remand pursuant to United States v. 2 4 Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). Silverio’s sole 2 5 argument on this appeal is that the district court 2 6 erroneously refused to consider the terms of a rejected plea 2 7 offer in which the government had offered to recommend a 2 8 lower prison term than ultimately imposed. We affirm3 1 because nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or controlling 2 precedent requires a sentencing court to consider a rejected 3 plea offer. 4 Silverio was one of the ringleaders of a criminal gang 5 that engaged in a series of home and business robberies over 6 an 18-month period. The victims, including families with 7 small children, were held hostage and threatened and 8 terrorized at gunpoint until cash and valuables were turned 9 over. During plea negotiations, the government expressed 1 0 willingness to enter an agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 1 1 11(e)(1)(C) (2000), which would include a binding sentence 1 2 recommendation of 17 years’ imprisonment--notwithstanding an 1 3 estimated Sentencing Guidelines range of approximately 22 to 1 4 27 years. Against counsel’s advice, Silverio rejected this 1 5 offer, believing he might obtain greater leniency from the 1 6 sentencing judge. Silverio later accepted a plea agreement 1 7 that contained no binding sentence recommendation. Pursuant 1 8 to that agreement, he was convicted of kidnapping in aid of 1 9 racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2 0 (2), conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1951, and use of a firearm in furtherance of crimes of 2 2 violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and4 1 (2). He was sentenced principally to 272 months of 2 incarceration. 3 Silverio’s initial appeal argued (inter alia) that the 4 district court erred in restricting a downward departure for 5 diminished capacity to a single level. By summary order 6 dated May 21, 2004, this Court affirmed the sentence, 7 specifically finding each of Silverio’s arguments without 8 merit. See United States v. Negron, 96 F. App’x 788 (2d 9 Cir. 2004) (unpublished), vacated on other grounds sub nom. 1 0 Silverio v. United States, 543 U.S. 1102 (2005). 1 1 Subsequently, the Supreme Court vacated that summary order 1 2 and remanded in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 1 3 220 (2005); and this Court remanded to the district court 1 4 for a Crosby review. See United States v. Silverio, No. 01- 1 5 1210 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2005) (unpublished). However, our 1 6 May 21, 2004 decision as to the arguments presented in the 1 7 initial appeal was explicitly made part of our November 15, 1 8 2005 remand order to the extent it was consistent with 1 9 Crosby, and thus remains the law of the case. SeeUn ite d 20 Sta tes v. Wi lli ams , 4 75 F.3 d 4 68, 47 5-7 6 ( 2d Cir . 2 007 ) . 2 1 On appeal from the district court’s decision following 2 2 the Crosby remand, Silverio argues that: (a) his rejection5 1 of the earlier plea offer was a manifestation of his 2 diminished capacity at the time; and (b) the rejected offer 3 was an acknowledgment by the government that a lesser 4 sentence would have been sufficient. We review a sentence 5 for reasonableness, under an abuse-of-discretion standard, 6 see Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007), 7 inc lud ingwh en thedi str ictco urtha s d ecl ine d t o r ese nte nce 8 pur sua nt to Cro sby , s ee Wil liams, 47 5 F .3dat47 4. Insofar 9 as Silverio is asserting an error in the extent of the 1 0 downward departure for diminished capacity in the original 1 1 sentence, the argument is barred by the law of the case 1 2 doctrine because it was adjudicated on his direct appeal. 1 3 See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir. 1 4 2002). 15 “Th e l aw of theca se doc tri ne wil l n ot, ho wev er, ba r a 16 def end antwh o i s n ot res ent enc ed aft er a C ros by remandfr om 17 cha lle ngi ng thepr oce dur es use d b y t he dis tri ct cou rt dur ing 18 theCr osb y r ema nd. ” Wil liams, 47 5 F .3dat47 6. He re, th e 19 dis tri ct cou rt ful ly compli ed wit h C ros by’ s p roc edu ral 20 requir eme nts , i ncl udi ng app rop ria te con sid era tio n o f t he 21 fac tor s s et for th in 18 U.S .C. § 355 3(a ). No thi ng in § 22 355 3(a ) o r c ont rol lin g p rec ede nt requir es a d ist ric t c our t6 1 to con sid er a r eje cte d p leaof fer . SeeRi ta v. Uni ted 2 Sta tes , 1 27 S. Ct. 24 56, 24 65 (20 07) (“ [Th e s ent enc ing 3 judge] ma y h earar gument s b y p ros ecu tio n o r d efe nseth at the 4 Gui del ine s s ent enc e s hou ld notap ply. . . .” (empha sis 5 add ed) ); cf. Un ite d S tat es v. Hamdi, 43 2 F .3d11 5, 124 (2 d 6 Cir . 2 005 ) ( not ing“t he wel l-s ett ledle gal pr inc ipl e t hat 7 ‘th e s ent enc ingju dgeis ofco urs e n ot bou nd by the 8 est ima tedra nge ’ i n apl ea agr eement ” ( quo tin g U nit ed Sta tes 9 v. Ros a, 123 F. 3d 94, 98 -99 (2 d C ir. 19 97) )). 10 In anyev ent , t he rec ordsh ows th at dur ingth e C ros by 11 remand , d efe nseco uns el was gi venfu ll opp ort uni ty to mak e 12 thi s a rgumen t. “[ W]een ter tai n ast ron g p res ump tio n t hat 13 these nte nci ng judge has co nsi der ed all ar gument s p rop erl y 14 pre sen tedto[h im] , u nle ss there cor d c lea rlysu gge sts 15 oth erw ise . Thi s p res ump tio n i s e spe cia llyfo rce ful wh en, as 16 was th e c asehe re, th e s ent enc ingju dgema kes ab und ant ly 17 cle ar tha t [ he] ha s r eadth e r ele van t s ubm iss ion s a nd tha t 18 [he ] h as con sid ere d t he § 3 553 (a) fa cto rs. ” Uni tedSt ate s 19 v. Fer nan dez , 4 43 F.3 d 1 9, 29 (2dCi r. 200 6). T he 20 sen ten cin g d eci sio n c are ful ly app lie d t he § 3 553 (a) fa cto rs 21 to Sil ver io’ s c ase , a nd spe cif ica llyco nsi der ed theki nds of 22 sen ten ces av ail abl e a nd thelo cat ionofth e s ent enc e w ith in7 1 theGu ide lin es ran ge. T he dis tri ct cou rt dec lin ed to 2 res ent enc e S ilv eri o, in lar ge par t b eca useofth e 3 “ho rre ndo us” an d “ ser iou s” nat ureofth e o ffe nse . Seeid . 4 at 27 (“[ I]nth e o ver whe lmi ng maj ori ty of cas es, a 5 Gui del ine s s ent enc e w ill fa ll com for tab ly wit hinth e b roa d 6 ran ge of sen ten ces th at wou ld be rea son abl e i n t he 7 par tic ula r c irc ums tan ces .”) . In doi ng so, th e d ist ric t 8 cou rt commit tednopr oce dur al or sub sta nti ve err or. 9 10 CONCLUSION 11 Forth e f ore goi ng rea son s, theor derofth e d ist ric t 12 cou rt is aff irmed.