The Honor able Timothy C. St ance u, of the United States Court of I nternational Trade , * sitti ng by desig nation. 09
- 44 05
- cr U n i t ed St at es v . Peg u er o UN I TED STATES CO U R T O F AP PEA LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 

### SU MM ARY ORDER
R UL I NG S B Y S UM M ARY OR DE R DO NO T HA V E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I TATI ON TO A SUM M AR Y ORD ER FI LED A FTER J AN UA RY 1, 2007, I S PE RM I TTED AN D I S GOVERNED BY F EDER AL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P RO CED UR E 3 2 .1 A N D T H IS CO URT ’ S L OC AL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W HE N CI T I NG A S UM M ARY OR DE R I N A D OC UM E NT F I L E D W I T H T HI S CO URT , A PA RTY M UST CI TE EI THER THE F EDER AL A P P EN DI X OF AN ELECTRO NI C D ATA BASE ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ S UM M ARY OR DER ” ). A PAR TY CI TI NG A SUM M AR Y ORD ER M UST S ERVE A C OPY OF I T ON A NY PA RTY NO T REPR ES ENTED BY CO UN SE L . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 22 day

of F ebrua

ry , two thousand ten. nd P R E S E N T : P E T E R

W
. H A LL, GERARD E. L YNCH, Circuit Judges , TI MOTHY C. STANCEU, Judge
. *

_______________________________________________________ United States of Amer ica, Appellee ,

v. No. 09-4405-c r Dionisio P eguero, Defendant- Appellant ,

________________________________________________________ Ap pe ari ngfo r A

pp e lla nt: J ANE S I MKI N S MI TH , Millbrook, New Yor k. Appea ringfor Appe llee: A V I W EI TZ MAN , A s s i s t an tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r

n e y, (Katherine Polk Fa illa, Assistant United St ates Attorne y , of Counsel, on the brief

), for Preet B hara

ra, United States Attorney for the Souther

n District of Ne w York, N ew Yor k, New Y ork. UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON whe reof , it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t is VACATED and REMAND ED for2

rese ntencingin acc ordanc e with this Order , and, for the re asons that follow, this Court further direc ts that the case be re assig ned to a diff ere nt judge
. Def endant Dionisio Peg uero a ppeals fr om a judg ment of convic tion and sentenc e imposed in the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (H ellerstein, J. ) b a se d o n h is guil ty

ple a to i lle g a lly

re e nte ri ngthe Un ite d St a te s a s a n a g g ra vate d f e lon in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and ( b)(2) . Peg uero w as sentenc ed to 50 months incarc eration and 3 y ear s supervised r elea se and a ppeale d to this court to review, inter alia, the district court’s application of the SentencingGuidelines as pr esumptively rea sonable. Persua ded that the district court ha d committed proce dural e rror by applying the Guidelines as pr esumptively rea sonable, this court enter ed an or der on Aug ust 19, 2009, vacating Peguero’ s sentence and re manding the
c a se fo r r e se nte nc ing . O n Se pte mbe r 2 5, 20 09 , f oll ow ingthe re mand , Pe g ue ro re qu e ste d to participate in the sentenc ing he aring . On Octobe r 14, 2009, the district cour t entere d a

“ Re se nte nc ingOr de r” wi tho ut a he ari ngand

imp os e d th e same se nte nc e a s th a t or ig ina lly imp os e d. Pe g ue ro and

the Go ve rnme nt a g re e that th e se nte nc e sh ou ld b e va c a te d a nd the c a se
rema nded for rese ntencingto take plac e with Peguero pr esent in open c ourt. United States v. Arrous, 32 0 F .3 d 3 55 , 3 59 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ). Pe g ue ro a lso a sse rt s th a t on re mand the matte r s ho uld be re assig ned to a diff

ere nt judge . The Gove rnment opposes that re quest. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the rele vant fa cts, proce dural history and issues pre sented for

revie w. As the g overnme nt conce des, our r emand or der c lear ly vacated Peguero’ s sentence and
se nt t he c a se ba c k to the dis tr ic t c ourt fo r “ re se nte nc ing .” Suc h a n o rd e r c le arl y

c on te mpl a te s a full sentencingproce dure, c omply ing w ith the proce dural rule s set forth in Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, including the rig ht of the def endant to make written and or al submissions3

with respec t to the sentence to be imposed. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(c) and 3742( g ), as
we ll a s Ru le 43 (a ) o f t

he F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ri min a l Pr oc e dure , a se nte nc ingc ourt

is r e qu ir e d to state its rea sons for the se ntence imposed in “open c ourt.” Exceptions to this rule, found under Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)( 4), ar e not applica ble her e. See e .g., Arrous, 320 F.3d at 359. As agree d by

the par ties, we ther efor e vac ate the se ntence of the district cour t and
re mand fo r r e se nte nc ingin o pe n c ourt . Wit h the exception of instance s involving per sonal bias, we c onsider thre e princ ipal fac tors in determining if rea ssignment to a ne w judg e is appropr iate: (1) whether the orig inal judge would “have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously -expressed views or f

indings de termined to be e rrone ous”; (2) whether rea ssignment would he lp to “prese rve the appe ara

nce of justice”; and ( 3) “whether rea ssignment would e ntail waste a nd duplication out of propor tion to any

g ain in prese rvingthe appe ara nce of fairne ss.” United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 10 ( 2d Cir. 1977). “To r eassig n a ca se on re mand, we ne ed only find that the fa cts might
rea sonably

cause an objec tive observe r to question [t he judg e’s] impartiality .” United States v. Londono, 1 0 0 F. 3 d

2 3 6 , 2 4 2 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Pe

sc ato rev . P an Am e ric an W or ld A irw ay

s, Inc., 97 F.3d 1, 21 ( 2d Cir. 1996)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted) (a lteration in orig inal) ( a b r o g a t e d o no th e r g r o un d s b y Un ite d S

tates v . M e rc urris , 192 F.3d 290, 294 ( 2d Cir. 1999)). There is no evidence in the rec ord to sug g est that J udg e He llerstein is not impartial. Indeed, w e note that the or igina l sentence imposed by J udg e He llerstein was a

below-Guidelines sentenc e. I t acc ounted for time- serve d by Peg uero in a

n immigration hold that would not be
c re dit e d a s p art

of his fe de ra l se nte nc e . We are fu lly c on fi de nt t

hat on re mand , Jud g e He lle rs te in4

could and would f

airly listen to any

argument Peg uero mig ht make for a lower sentenc e than that orig inally imposed. Peg uero doe s not seriously argue that Judge H ellerstein would not in fa ct be ope nminded. He doe s argue, howe ver, that the judge ’s quick re imposit ion of the same se ntence , without hearingfurther

argument, and without acknow ledg ing Peguero’ s letter of Septe mber 25, 2009, which expressly

reque sted a ne w sentenc ing he aringand the oppor tunity to proffe r
a dd iti on a l su

bmi ssi on s f

or the c ourt ’s c on sid e ratio n, c re a te s a n a pp e ara nc e that ne w a

rgume nts wi ll n ot b e fa ir ly

he ard . It is un c le ar what ha pp e ne d to that Se pte mbe r 2 5 le tte r b e tw e e n it s transmission and its docketing on November 12, 2009. See Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 18 (filed Nov. 12, 2009). I t is also unclear

whether J udg e He llerstein in fac t considere d the letter in a dvance of
e nte ri ngthe Re se nte nc ingOr de r. No ne the le ss, be c a us e the re qu e st w a s ma de in c onne c tio n w ith the first re mand for r esente ncingand for whateve r re ason wa s neither a cknowledg ed nor a cted upon, and bec ause pa

rt of what was soug ht in that request (a rese ntencinghear ing) is what we now must order in this dispositi on, there arise c oncer ns about the appe ara

nce of the proc esses
e mpl oy e d to imp os e a

se nte nc e on

the a pp e lla nt. P r e c e d e n ts u g g e s t s th a tth i s i s ana p p r o p r i a t e o c c a s i o nf

o r r e m an d t o a d i f f e r e n tj u d g e . In Un ite d S tates v . D e

Mo tt , 5 13 F .3 d 5 5, 59 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ), wh e re the dis tr ic t c ourt sim ila rl y reimposed a

n identical sente nce a fter a first rema

nd without holding a he aringor “e liciting the views of the de fenda

nt or the prose cutor,” we c oncluded – without finding any persona l bias on the par t of the district judg e – that re assig nment was a ppropriate beca

use “a n objective obse rver might nonethe less question [t he district judg e’s] impartiality .” Id. We are mindful that “in a fe w ins tanc e s th e re may

be un us ua l c ir c ums tanc e s w he re . . . a ssi g nme nt t o a dif fe re nt j ud g e is5

salutary and in the public intere st, especia lly as it minim izes even a suspicion of pa rtiality .” United States v. Robin, 55 3 F .2 d 8 , 9 -1 0 ( 2d Cir . 1 97 7) . We are a lso min df ul, and state unequivoca lly

in reg ard to this case , that “[i] n such circ umstances our rema nd does not imply

any persona l criticism of the trial or the sentenc ing judg e.” Id. at 10. B alanc ing pr eser vation of appea ranc es of justice in this case ag ainst the other f actor s identified in Robin, howeve r, and exercising an abunda

nce of caution, we find this to be one of those “ unusual circ umstances.” Id. Acc ording ly , upon rema

nd, the District Court is directed to r eassig n this case to a dif fer ent judg e. Finally , we note that Pegue ro is schedule d to be re lease d from inca rce ration in May

2010 and will be depor

ted from the United States at the end of that month. For that re ason, it is further order ed that Peguero’ s rese ntencingproce eding s be conc luded on or be fore Marc h 31, 2010. F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is VACATED and the
c a se is REMAND ED for r esente ncingconsistent with this decision. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk