J udge R os emar yS. Pool er , or i gi nal l y as s i gned t o thi s panel , di d notpart i ci pat e i n the * c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. T h e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e rs o f th e p a n e l, w h o a re in agr eement, h av e d eterm ined this m att er in a cc o rda n ce w ith S ec o n d C ir cu itInterna l O per at i ng P roc ed u re E (b). 08
- 18 63
- cr ; 08
- 21 94
- cr U ni t ed S t at es v. W ei UNIT ED STATES COU RT OF APPE ALS FO R TH E S EC O N D C IR C U IT SUM M ARY OR DER R U L I N GS B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA VE P R E C E D E N T I A L EFF ECT . C I T A T I ON T O A SU M M ARY ORDER F I LED ON OR AF TER J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I TTED AND I S GO V E R N E D BY FE DERAL R ULE OF AP PE LLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COURT’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A D OCUM ENT FILE D W I TH TH I S COURT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X O R A N E L E C T R O N I C D A T A B A S E ( WI T H T H E N O T A T I ON “ SU M M ARY ORDER” ) . A PA RTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA RTY NOT REP RES ENTED BY COUNSEL. A t a stated term o f th e U n ited S tates C o u rt o f A p p eals fo r th e S eco n d C ircu it, h eld a tthe Dani e l Pa tr i c k M oyni ha n Uni t e d St a t e s Cour thous e , 500 Pe a r l St r e e t , i n the Ci tyof New Y or k, on the 29 da yof Apri l , two t hous and t e n. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETER W
. HA LL,

C irc u it Jud g es . *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D ST AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A p p el le e , v. Nos. 08- 1863- c r ( L) 0 8
- 2 1 9 4
- c r( CO N) SHI YONG WE I , L I N GUAN G, D efen da n ts-A

p p ella n ts .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- APP E AR I NG FOR APP E L L ANT S: AL AN M. NE L SON , L a k e Suc c e s s , New York, f orD efen d an t-A p p ellan t S h i Y o n g W ei. JO N A T H A N I. E D E L S T E IN , N ew Y o rk, N ew Y o rk , f orDef e nda nt - Appel l a ntLi n Guang. APP E AR I NG FOR APP E L L E E : JE N N IF E R G
. R O D G E R S , A s s ista n t U n it ed2 S tat es A tto rn ey (M ir iam E . R o c a h , o n the br ie f ), f orL ev L. D assi n , A ct ing U n it ed S ta te s A tt o rney f or the Sout he rn Di s tr i c t of New Yor k, New Y or k, New Y ork. A p p eal f rom the U n it ed S ta te s D istri ctC o u rt f o r the S o u thern D istri cto f N ew Y o rk (R ich ar d M . B er m an , J

udge ). UPO N DUE CO NSI DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DEC REED tha tthe j udgme nte nt e r e d on Apri l 10, 2008, i s AFF I RMED
. Def e nda nt s Sh i Yo n g We i a n d L i n Gu a n g we r e c o n v i c t e d f o l l o wi n g a j u ry tr i a l of
c on s pi r a c yt o c om m i t e xt ort i on a nd m ul t i pl e c ou nt s of s ub s t a nt i ve e xt ort i on . Se e 18 U. S. C. § 1 95 1. S hi and Li n h e re app e a l thei r ame nd e d sent e nce s of 21 0 mon ths’ and 14 3 mon ths’ i mpr i s onme nt , r e s pe c t i ve l y , i mpos e d a f t e rr e mand bythi s c our t . Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v. Guang, 5 1 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 2 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (ho lding thatd istri ctcou rterr ed in im p o sing six-le v el sentence en h ancement app li cable w h en ex tort ion v ic ti m su sta ins p erman ent bo d il yinjury ). Def e nda nt s a s s e r t( 1) e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s Gui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i on on r e mand, a nd ( 2)
s u b s tan tiv e u n re as o n ab len es s in th eirter m s o f in ca rc er ati o n . W e r e v i e w d e f e n d a n t s ’ sentenc i ng c ha l l e nge s unde ra n abus e - of
- di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d tha t“i nc orpor a t e s de novo revie w o f q u est ion s o f

law (i n cl u d ing inte rpreta ti o n o f the G u idel ines) and cl ear -error review of qu e st i on s of f

a c t . ” U nit e d St a t e s v. Legros, 52 9 F. 3d 47 0, 47 3-74 ( 2d Cir
. 20 08 ); se e a l so U n ited S tates v . C av era, 5 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (en b an c). F o r a fi n d in g o f f act to b e cl ear lyerr o n eou s, w e mus t be “lef t w ith the d ef

init e and f

irm c o n v ic ti o n thata mi stak e has b een com mitte d
. ” U n it ed S ta te s v . C u evas, 49 6 F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (i n te rnal3

q u o tation mar k s o mitted ). W e w ill set as id e a d istrict c o u rt’s s en ten ce as su b stan tiv ely
u n rea so n able “o n lyin ex ce p ti o n al case s w h ere the tri al cou rt ’s decisi o n cann o t be l o cat ed
w ith in the rang e of permi ssible deci sion s. ” U n it ed S ta te s v . C avera, 5 5 0 F
. 3 d at1 8 9 (i n te rnal qu ota t i on ma rks omi t t e d). In app l y in g these pri nci ple s t o thi s c a se , w e a ssume the part i e s’ f a mi l i a r i ty wi th the f

a c t s a nd r e c or d of pr i or pr oc e e di ngs , whi c h we r e f e r e n ce on lyas
nec e ssaryt o expla i n o ur dec i si on t o af f i rm . 1. The Gui de l i ne s Ca l c ul a t i on D efen d an ts s u b mit th at th e ev id en ce o f v ictim in ju ryw as in su ff

icien t to su p p o rt a three -l evel G u idel ines enh ancement pu rsuan t t o U .S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 3
. 2 (b)(4 ). W e disagree. Se c t i on 2B3. 2( b) ( 4) c a l l s f oratwo-l e ve l e nha nc e me ntf or“bodi ly injury , ” de f

i ne d a s “a ny sign if ic ant i n jury ; e. g . , an i n

jury that is p ai n f

u l and o b v iou s, o r is o f a typ e f o r w h ic h medical atten tio n o rd in arilyw o u ld b e so u g h t.” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 , cm t. n . 1 (B ); see id . § 2 B 3 .2 cmt.
n. 1 ( c r os s - r e f

e r e nc i ng § 1B1. 1)
. The s a me Gui de l i ne c a l l s f oraf our - l e ve l e nha nc e me ntf or “seriou s b o d il yinjury , ” def ined as “ injuryinv o lving extre me p h y sic al p ai n o r th e pro tr act ed impairment o f

a f u n ct ion o f a b o d il ymemb er, o rgan , o r mental f aculty ; or requ ir ing medical i nt e r ve nt i on s uc h a s s ur ge ry , hos pi t a l i z a t i on, or phy s i c a l r e habi l i t a t i on. ” I d. § 1B1. 1, c mt . n. 1 (L). I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c t c our t f ound tha tde f

e nda nt s s pr a y e d one of

the i rvi c t i ms , Zha ng Qi ng Hai , wi th abl i ndi ng l i qui d a nd be a t hi m s o s e ve r e l ytha the l os tc ons c i ous ne s s . Upon Zha ng’ s a rr i va l a tahos pi t a l , hi s s hi r twas f ul l of bl ood a nd he r e qui r e d s t i t c he s . Fur the r , the d istrict co u rt f

o u n d , b ased in p art o n its o w n o b ser v atio n , that, as a r esu lt o f th e ass au lt,T he fa ct that an opht hal m ol ogi s t w ho exami ned Z hang more than fi ve y ear s aft erthe 1 a ss a u lt co u ld n o t co n c lu siv e lyd e ter m in e th e c a u se o f th e m il d c o n ju n c tiv a l sc a rrin g still evi denti n Z hang’ s ey es does notl eave us w i th a defi ni t e and fi r m convi ct i on thatthe di s tr i ct courtw as m i s t aken i n fi ndi ng i tm or e l i kel ythan notthatsp ray ing Z hang’ s ey es w i th a bl i ndi ng s ubs t ance i m pai r ed hi s vi s i on. See U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i nez, 525 F. 3d 211, 215 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng “j udi ci al author i ty t o fi nd fac t s r el evant t o s ent enci ng bya pr eponder ance o f th e e v iden ce ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s an d alt era ti o n o m itted)). 4 Zha ng’ s abi l i tyt o r e a d r e ma i ne d i mpa i r e d f o r atl e a s ttwo and aha l f y e a r s , thr ough de f e nda nt s ’ tr i a l
. The s e f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs , l a r ge l yba s e d on Zha ng’ s tr i a l t e s t i mony , wer e not cl ear lyerr o n eou s. S ee U n it ed S ta te s v . C u evas , 4 9 6 F .3 d at2 6 7 (ob serving thatf actu al fi n d in g s b ased o n w itn ess testimo n y “ a r e e n tit led to p articu lar d eferen ce” s in ce cred ib ili ty
a s s e s s me nt“i s di s t i nc t l ythe pr ovi nce o f the di s tr i c tc our t ” ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on mar ks a nd ci ta ti o n o mitte d )). S u ch fi n d ing s w ere su f f ic ie n t t o su p p o rt“at l easta th ree -l evel i n cre ase” 1 i n the of f e ns e - l e ve l c a l c ul a t i on. Se nt e nc i ng Tr
. a t5; see U n it ed St a t e s v. Guang, 511 F. 3d
a t12 4 (c oll e c t i ng c a se s i nd i c a t i ng thatdet e rm i nat i on of i njuryl e vel “pre se nts a p redo minan tl yf

actu al issue, w h ic h w e re v ie w f o r cl earerr o r”)
. W h er e a v ic ti m h as been be a te n bl oodya nd unc ons c i ous , r e qui r i ng e me r ge nc yhos pi t a l i z a t i on ( e ve n br i e f l y ) a nd sti tc h es , a nyr e a s onabl e pe r s on woul d c onc l ude tha tthe i nj uryc a us e d “e xtr e me phy s i c al p ai n . ” S ee U n it ed S ta te s v . E u b ank s, 5 9 3 F
. 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 1 (7th C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ) (u p h o lding three
le v el enh ancement f

o r i n juri es deemed “ g rea te r than .
. . ‘si g n if ic ant’ b u t n o t qu it e ‘se ri o u s’”
w her e vic t i m r e qu i re d f ou r stap les t o cl ose he a d w ou nd a nd “al mostl ostc on sc i ou snes s” (emph asi s add ed)); cf

. U n it ed S ta te s v . T avares, 9 3 F
. 3 d 1 0 , 1 6 (1st C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ) (ob serving that
one - i nc h l a c e r a t i on r e qui r i ng s t i t c he s a nd a c c ompani e d by “gr e a t de a l of bl ood l os s . . . mi ght
w ell b e th o u g h t [ su ff

icien tly ] se rio u s” to w arran t fou r-lev el en h an cem en t for“ ser io u s b o d ily5

injury ”). S im il arl y , w h ere a perso n w h o h as had a bli n d ing li q u id sp ray ed in h is e y es manif est s con ti n u ed d if

f ic u ltyrea d ing app are n t t o the d istri ct cou rt mo re than tw o y ear s la te r,
af i ndi ng of pr otr a c t e d vi s i on i mpa i r me nti s warr a nt e d. A cco rd in g ly , w e reject d efen d an ts’ G u id elin es calcu lation ch allen g e as w ith o u t merit. 2. S ub st a nti ve Rea sonabl e ness E q u allymer itl ess are d efen d an ts’ cl aims th at th eir sen ten ces a re s u b stan tiv ely
un re a sonabl e . S hi’ s e xtort i on a t e a c t i vit i e s spa nn i ng af ou r- y e arper i od i nv olve d ei gh tvic t i ms
a nd the use (notsi mpl ythe thre a t ) of viol e nce . A l tho ug h L i n’s c ri me s i nv olve d thr e e vic t i ms, h e t o o u sed actu al v iole n ce. T h ese c ir cums tan ces bythemsel v es precl u d e us fr o m f ind ing that th e c h allen g ed sen ten ces – w ith in d efen d an ts’ G u id elin es r an g es – are s u b stan tiv ely
u n rea so n able. S ee R it a v . U n it ed S ta te s, 5 5 1 U
. S
. 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 (20 0 7 ) (no ti n g thatG u idel ines sentence “sign if

ic antl yincre ases th e l ikel iho o d thatthe sentence i s a reason able on e”) ; U n it ed S tates v . F ern an d ez, 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 , 2 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). E v id en ce th at d efen d an ts mad e eff o rts to rehab il it at e th emsel v es i n p ri so n – e. g . , b yle arning E n g li sh

– d o es n o t mo v e the chall eng ed
sen ten ces o u tsid e th e b ro ad ran g e o f reaso n ab le p u n ish men ts av ailab le to th e d istrict co u rt. S ee U n it ed S ta te s v . Jo n es, 5 3 1 F
. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). W e hav e con sidered d ef end ants’ re mai n in g ar g u ments o n app eal and con cl u d e th at th eyare w ith o u t merit. A cco rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g men t o f th e d istrict co u rt. FO R TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C le rk o f C o u rt