08 -50 18 -cr USA v. H ernand ez

1 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS 2 

### FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 3 4 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R 5 6 R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E P R ECED ENTI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI O N TO A SUM M A R Y O R D ER 7 FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED AN D I S GO V ERN ED BY FED ERA L R U LE O F AP PELLA TE 8 PR OCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S C OU R T ’ S L OC A L R U L E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A D OCUM E NT 9 F IL E D W IT H T H IS C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C IT E E IT H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R A N E L E C T R O N IC 10 DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE 11 A CO PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 12 13 At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at 14 the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of New 15 Yo r k, o n t he 14 dayof M ay , t wo t hous and t e n. th 16 17 PRES ENT: 1 8 G U ID O C A LA B R E S I, 19 ROBERT A. K ATZ MAN, 20 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 21 Circuit Judges

. 22

__________________________________________ 23 24 United States of Amer ica, 25 26 Appellee , 27 28 v. 08-5018-c r 29 30 Gabino He rnande z, also known as “L uis Gambao,” 31 32 Defendant- Appellant

. 33

__________________________________________ 34 35 FOR APPEL LANT: DARREL LB. F I EL DS, Fede ral De fende rs of Ne w York, Inc., 36 Appea ls Bure au, Ne w York, N .Y. 37 38 FOR APPEL L EE: J ONATH AN B . NEW, MI CHAEL A. L EVY, Assistant United 39 State s A tto rn e y s for PREET BHARARA, United States Attorne y 40 for the Souther n District of Ne w York, N ew Yor k, N.Y. 412 1 U P ON D U E C ON SI D ER A TI ON I T I S HE REB Y OR D ERED , A D J U D G ED , AND 2 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. 3 Def

endant- Appellant Ga

bino Herna

ndez appea ls from an October 3, 2008 judgme nt of the 4 Un ited States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Ly

nch, J. ) , s e n t e n c i ng him 5 principally to 235 months’ imprisonment. We assume the par ties’ fa miliarity with the underlying 6 fa c ts, pr oc e dura l hi sto ry , a nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 7 Fr om 1995 throug h 2000, Her nandez serve d as the leade r of an or g anization that dist ributed 8 more than 100 kilog rams of c ocain e and 1.5 kilog rams of c ocaine base ( “cr ack c ocaine ”) in the 9 vicinity

of West 140th St ree t and B roadw ay i n Manhattan. O n J uly

13, 2000, Her

nandez was 10 arr ested a

nd three apar

tments in New Yor k C i t y t h at he controlled wer e sea rche d pursuant to a 11 war

rant. P o wd er coca ine, cr ack c ocaine , narc otics-re lated re cords, a nd drugpara

pherna lia wer e 12 discovere d. Pursuant to a cooperation ag ree ment, Her nandez pl ed guilty

on J anuar

y 25, 2001 to an 13 information cha rg ing one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to dis tribute five 14 kil og ram s and more of c oc a ine and

50 g ra ms a nd mor e of c oc a ine ba se , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. 15 § 846. Pursuant to the terms of the a g ree ment, Her nandez was r elea sed on bail on F ebrua ry 8, 2001. 16 After

rema ining in conta ct with the Gover nment for less than two months, Hernande z fled 17 the United States to live first in the Dominican Republic a nd then in Spain. Seven y ear s later, he was 1 8 ex tra d i t edfr o mS p ai nan d , o nOc t o b e r3 , 2 0 0 8 , h e ap p ea re d i nd i s tri ctco urtfo r s en t en ci n g. 19 Her

nandez and

th e G o v e rnment stipulated to the SentencingGuidelines ca lculations in the Probation 20 De pa

rtme nt’ s Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt and the c ourt , a ft e r un de rt akin g its own re vie w o f t he Gu ide lin e s, 21 ag ree d that Her nandez’s base offe nse level was 38 and his criminal history cate g ory was I , resulting 22 in a Guidelines ra n ge of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. Although H erna ndez argued for

a3 1 re du c e d n on -Guid e lin e s se nte nc e , th e c ourt se nte nc e d h im p ri nc ipa lly to a te rm of 23 5 mo nth s’ 2 imprisonment, a sentence at the very bottom of t he Guidelines rang e, to be followed by five year s 3 of

su pe rv ise d r e le a se . H e rn and e z no w appea ls the po rt ion of his se nte nc e imp os ing23 5 mo nth s’ 4 imprisonment, arguing that his sentence w as substantively unrea sonable. 5 We reviewHer nandez’s sente nce f

or re asonable ness, but that “doe s n o t e ntailth e s u b s ti tution 6 of our judg ment for that of the sentenc ing judg e.” United States v. Fe rnandez , 443 F.3d 19, 27 ( 2d 7 Cir . 2 00 6) . Rathe r, “th e famili ar a bu se -o f- dis c re tio n s tand ard of re vie w n owa

pp lie s to a

pp e llate 8 re v i ew of

sentenc ing de cisions.” Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 3 8, 46 (2 00 7) . T his 9 abuse- of-discr etion standard a pplies whether t h e sentence imposed f alls “inside or outside the 10 Gu idelines rang e.” Id. at 4 9

. Inr e v ie w in gf o r s u b s ta n ti v e r e a s o n a

b le n e s s , w e mu s t d e te r

mine 11 whether the di strict court’s sentence is located “within the rang e of permissible decisions.” United 12 S

ta t es v . Ca v e ra , 550 F.3d 180, 189 ( 2d Cir. 2008). “[W] e take into account the totality of the 13 c ir c ums tanc e s, g ivi ng du e de fe re nc e to the se nte nc ing jud g e ’s e xer c ise of dis c re tio n, and be ari ngin 14 mind the insti tutional advantag es of district cour ts.” Id. at1 9 0 (c i t i n g Rita v. United States , 5 51 U. S. 15 338, 354 (2007)) . Whil e the Sec tion 3553(a) f actor s “guide appe llate cour ts . . . in determi n i ng 16 whether

a sente nce is unre asonable ,” United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005), we will “not 17 substitut e our own judgme nt f or the district c ourt’s on the question of what is suffic ient to meet the 18 § 3553(a) considerations in any particula r ca se.” Cav e ra , 550 F.3d at 189. Moreove r, “we wil l not 19 second guess the we ight ( or lac k there of) that the judg e accor ded to a g iven [S ection 3553(a )] factor 20 or to a specific argument made pursuant to that fa ctor.” United States v. Pope , 554 F.3d 240, 247 21 (2d Cir. 2009). 22 Her

nandez ar gues that g iven the circumstance s of his case , the 235-month prison sentenc e4 1 imposed by

the district court wa s l ong er tha n nece ssary

to comply

with the purposes of Sec tion 2 3553(a) (2) and was therefor e substantively unrea sonable. Spec ifically , he conte nds that his lack of 3 a cr iminal recor d, his relatively advanc ed ag e, his ties to f amily , and asser

tions that he has lived a 4 life fr ee f

rom crime a fter f

leeingthe United S tates t o the Domi nican Republic and Spain combine 5 to m ake it unli ke ly that he wi ll c ommit fut ur e c ri me s. Th is a lle g e d lo w l ike lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m, 6 Her

nandez asser

ts, render s his sentence unrea sonable. We disag ree . 7 Section 3553(a) instructs a sentenc ing c ourt to impose a “se ntence sufficie nt, but not gre ater 8 than nec essar

y” to comply with the purposes of Section 3553(a) (2), whic h include the ne ed for the 9 se nte nc e to r e fl e c t th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , p ro mot e re sp e c t f or the law, pro vi de jus t 10 punishment for the off ense, a ffor d deter

renc e to cr iminal conduct, and pr otect the public f rom furthe r 11 crimes of

the def endant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)

. In addition, a sente ncingcourt must consider 12 the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense a nd the history

of the de fenda

nt; the kinds of sentence s 1 3 a va ilable ; th e a p p l i c a b l e s e n t e n c i n gr an g e s e tf o rthi nth e G u i d e l i n e s ; a n d th e n e e d t o av o id 14 unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities. See id. § 3553(a)

. 15 Her e, the r ecor d makes c lear that t h e district cour

t specifica lly

considere d, amongother 16 thi ng s, the se ri ou sn e ss of He rn and e z’s of

fe ns e g ive n h is i nv olv e me nt a s th e mana g e r o f a wh ole sa le 17 c oc a ine op e ratio n, his fl ight fr om t he Un ite d St ate s a

nd atte mpt to o bs tr uc t ju sti c e , th e a

pp lic a ble 18 Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e, the ne ed to t reat simil arly situated defe ndants similarly , and the ne ed 19 to impose a sentenc e suff icient to acc omplish t he g oals of puni shment and dete rre nce. Mor eover , 20 the district court considered the very argument that Her nandez now make s on appea l, and conc luded 21 that the other pur poses of s en t en ci n gas enume rate d in Section 3553(a) justified the se ntence 22 ultimately imposed. In so weig hing the Section 3553(a ) fa ctors, the c ourt did not abuse its discretion5 1 when it sentenc ed Hernande z to a 235-month term of imprisonment. In short, this is notone of the 2 “exceptional ca ses” whe re the district court’s de cision “ca nnot be locate d within t h e ra n ge of 3 permissible dec isions.” Cav e ra , 550 F.3d at 189. 4 We have c onsidered the rema inder of H erna ndez’s claims and de termined them to be w ithout 5 me ri t. 6 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED

. 7 8 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 12