20-3382

United States v. Waldstein

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO 

A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS 

GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S 

LOCAL RULE 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 TO 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 for the Second Circuit, held 

2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 

York, on the 28 3 th day of September, two thousand twenty-one.

4

5 PRESENT:

6 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

8 Circuit Judges,

PAMELA K. CHEN,

∗ 9

10 District Judge.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

14

15 Appellee,

16

17 v. No. 20-3382

18

19 NOAH WALDSTEIN,

20

21 Defendant-Appellant.

∗Pamela K. Chen, District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2

1 _____________________________________

For Appellee: T. Josiah Pertz, Olga I. Zverovich, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, for Audrey 

Strauss, United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of New York, New York, 

NY.

For Appellant: Yuanchung Lee, Federal Defenders of New 

York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, NY.

2

3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

4 (Seibel, J.).

5 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

6 AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

7 Noah Waldstein appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for 

8 the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.) revoking his term of supervised release and 

9 sentencing him to a new term of 366 days’ imprisonment, followed by an additional term 

10 of supervised release of one year and 364 days. Waldstein argues that his sentence was 

11 substantively unreasonable because the sentencing judge did not properly consider his 

12 troubled upbringing, his drug addiction, and the fact that he received conflicting 

13 guidance from his probation officer concerning whether the terms of his supervised 

14 release required him to enter inpatient substance abuse treatment. We assume the 

15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. 

16 “Sentences for violations of supervised release are reviewed under the same 
3

1 standard as for sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.” 

2 United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and 

3 citations omitted). We review challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

4 under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 

5 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We show 

6 great deference to how the district court weighed the sentencing factors, considering only 

7 “whether [a sentencing] factor, as explained by the district court, can bear the weight 

8 assigned it under the totality of circumstances in the case.” Id. at 191. It is only when a 

9 sentence is “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of 

10 law” that we will vacate the district court’s considered judgment at sentencing. United 

11 States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009).

12 Here, we find no substantive error in the sentence imposed by the district court. 

13 Although Waldstein argues that the sentencing judge should have focused foremost on 

14 the breach of trust associated with his violations of supervised release, and not on 

15 retribution, the record demonstrates that the district court did precisely that. See App’x 

16 183 (“I’m sentencing for the breach of trust, not the original offense conduct.”). Since 

17 the original sentence required that Waldstein participate in mental health treatment and 

18 outpatient substance abuse treatment programs as conditions of his supervised release, 

19 Waldstein’s blatant defiance of those conditions constituted a serious breach of that trust. 
4

1 Indeed, the district judge observed that Waldstein’s “contempt for the law and his 

2 obligations” gave her great concern. Id. at 186. We cannot say that such concern was 

3 unfounded.

4 Waldstein next contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable 

5 because the district court overlooked or gave insufficient weight to his difficult 

6 childhood, his marijuana addiction, and his reliance on his probation officer’s initial 

7 assurance – later countermanded by the judge – that he did not need to enter into an 

8 inpatient care facility. But while Waldstein argues that these potential mitigating factors 

9 should have resulted in a lesser sentence, the record reflects that the district court 

10 considered each of these factors before imposing the sentence. The district court 

11 nevertheless concluded that Waldstein’s ten failed drug tests, his failure to appear at 

12 sixty-eight substance abuse treatment sessions, his history of violence, and his 

13 aggressive behavior that resulted in his discharge from his inpatient care facility 

14 outweighed these other considerations. Although Waldstein may disagree with the 

15 district court’s balancing of these factors and the weight it accorded to each, we see no 

16 reason to second guess the court’s judgment. Ultimately, we cannot say that the 

17 sentence imposed by the district court was shockingly high or otherwise unsupportable 

18 as a matter of law. 

19
5

1 We have considered the remainder of Waldstein’s arguments and find them to be 

2 without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

3

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

6