1

USA v. Nash (Foxworth) 09-4581-cr



### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.



### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 22 day of November, two thousand ten. nd 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

### 9 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 

### 10 Circuit Judges. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

### 13 14 Appellee, 

### 15 16 17 -v.- 09-4581-cr 

### 18 19 JASON FOXWORTH, 

### 20 21 Defendant-Appellant. 

### 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 23 FOR APPELLANT: Neil B. Checkman 

### 24 Law Office of Neil B. Checkman, Esq. 

### 25 26 111 Broadway, Suite 1305 

### 27 New York, NY 10006 

### 282 

### 1 FOR APPELLEE: Avi Weitzman 

### 2 Wai Shun Wilson Leung 

### 3 Daniel A. Braun 

### 4 U.S. Attorney’s Office SDNY 

### 5 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza 

### 6 New York, NY 10007 

### 7 8 Appeal from sentence imposed by the United States 

### 9 District Court for the Southern District of New York 

### 10 (Kaplan, J.). 

### 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 13 AND DECREED that the district court’s sentence be AFFIRMED

. 

### 14 15 Jason Foxworth challenges his 68-month prison sentence, 

### 16 which was imposed by the United States District Court for 

### 17 the Southern District of New York after Foxworth was 

### 18 convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. 

### 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

### 20 facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for 

### 21 review. 

### 22 23 Appellate review of a district court’s sentence has two 

### 24 components: procedural review and substantive review. 

### 25 United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) 

### 26 (in banc). If the appellate court finds no procedural 

### 27 error, the substantive review is done under an abuse-of

### 28 discretion standard. Id. at 187 (citing Gall v. United 

### 29 States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007)). Under the abuse-of

### 30 discretion standard, an appellate court will vacate the 

### 31 district court’s sentence only in “exceptional cases where 

### 32 the trial court’s decision ‘cannot be located within the 

### 33 range of permissible decisions.’” Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 

### 34 (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 238 (2d Cir. 

### 35 2007)). 

### 36 37 Concluding that the district court committed no 

### 38 procedural error and that the 68-month sentence it imposed 

### 39 was reasonable and well within “the range of permissible 

### 40 decisions,” we hereby AFFIRM the sentence. 

### 41 42 FOR THE COURT: 

### 43 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 44