08-3490-c r

United States v. Torre s 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATION TO 7 SUMM ARY O RDERS FI LED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 , IS P ERMI TTED AND IS GOVERNED 8 B Y THIS COURT’S LO CAL RULE 32.1 AND F EDERAL RULE OF APP ELLATE PRO CEDURE 9 32.1 . IN A B RIEF OR OTH ER P AP ER IN WH ICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMM ARY O RDER, 10 IN EA CH PARA GR APH IN WHICH A CIT AT ION A PP EA RS , A T LE AS T ONE CIT AT ION MU ST 11 EITH ER BE TO THE F EDERAL APP ENDIX OR B E ACCOM P ANIED B Y T HE NO TATIO N: 12 “( S U MMA R

Y ORD E R). ” A PA R T Y C IT IN G A S U MMA R Y ORD E R

MU S T S E R

V E AC OPY OF 13 THAT SUM MARY ORDER TOGETH ER W I T H T H E PAP ER IN WHI CH TH E SUMM ARY 14 ORD E R

I S C IT E D ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PRE S E N T ED BY C OU N S E L U N L E S S T HE 15 SUMM ARY O RDER IS AVAILABLE IN A N ELECTRONI C DATABASE W HI CH IS PUB LICLY 16 ACCESSIB LE WITH OUT P AY MENT O F FEE (S UCH AS THE DA T A B A S E AVAI LAB LE AT 17 HT T P://WW W. C A 2. U S C OU R T S . G OV/) . I F N O C OPY I S S E R V E D BY RE A S ON OF T HE 18 AVAILAB ILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATAB ASE, TH E CITATIO N MUST INCLUDE 19 REF ERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCK ET NUMB ER OF THE CASE IN WH ICH 20 THE O RDER WAS ENTERED. 21 22 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 23 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 16 day th 24 of De cembe r, two thousand nine. 25 26 Pr e se nt: 2 7 H O N

. P IE RR E N

. LE V A L, 28 HO N. B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, 29 HON. RI CHARD C. W ESL EY, 30 Circuit Judges , 31 32

________________________________________________ 33 34 United States of America, 35 36 Appellee , 37 38 v. No. 08-3490-c r 39 40 Gilbert Torr es, 41 42 Defendant- Appellant

. 43 44

________________________________________________-2- 1 2 F or

De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: LAWRENC E G ER Z OG , New Y ork, Ne w York 3 4 For

Appellee : L EV L. D A SS IN , ActingUnited States Attorney for the Souther

n 5 District of Ne w York ( Iris L an & Daniel A. B raun, A ssistant 6 United States Attorney , of counse l), NewYork, Ne w York 7

________________________________________________ 8 9 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York 10 (Cote, J. ). 11 12 ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and 13 DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

date d July

11 , 2 00 8, be and

he re by is 14 AF F IRM ED

. 15 Gilbert Torr es appe als from his sentenc e of 151 months incar cer ation followed by 3 y ear s 16 supervised r elea se, imposed by the district court followinghis plea of guilty to one count of 17 conspirac y

to distribute and possess with intent to dis tribute methylenedioxy methamphetamine 18 (“MDMA ”) unde r 21 U.S.C. § 846. Torre s argues that his sentenc e is both proce durally and 19 substantively

unrea sonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the fac ts and the re cord of 20 prior proc eeding s, which we ref ere nce only

as nec essar

y to expl ain our de cision. 21 Torre s makes thre e ar guments on appea l. First, he c laims that the district court 22 committed proce dural e rror beca use although it determined that Tor res’ s sentence was 23 “re asonable ,” it did not specifica lly invoke the re quirement, unde r the so-c alled “pa rsimony 24 clause ” of 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a), that a se ntence be “suf ficient, but not greater than ne cessa ry .” 25 Se c on d, he a sse rt s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt c omm itt e d p ro c e dura l and su bs tanti ve e rr or

wh e n it 26 deter

mined, based on his criminal hist ory , that deter renc e re quired a

more seve re se ntence ,-3- 1 notwithstanding e vidence that cer tain psychiatric conditions contributed to his past crimes. 2 Third, Torr es ar gues that the district cour t committed procedur al er ror in fa iling to consider 3 whether

he should rec eive a

downwar d depar

ture unde r § 4A1.3 of the SentencingGuidelines on 4 the g ro un d th at hi s c ri min a l hi sto ry c a lc ulatio n o ve rs tate s th e lik e lih oo d o f h is r e c idi vis m. 5 We consider a ll of these ar guments to be without merit. First, although the district court 6 did not refe r to the par simony clause of § 3553(a ), it need not have done so. Cf. United States v. 7 Banks , 464 F.3d 184, 190 ( “[T] here is no require ment that the cour t mention the require d fac tors 8 [under § 3553(a) ], m uch less explain how eac h fac tor aff ecte d the cour

t's de cision.”). Sec ond, 9 althoug h Torre s claims that the district court c ommitt ed proc edura l error by failingto consider 10 his mental health, the sente ncingtranscript shows that the court explicitl y considere d the 11 evidenc e of Tor

res’ s psychiatric condition when dete rmining that deterr ence require d the 12 sentenc e it imposed. We also find that this factor “ can be ar the weight assigne d to it,” United 13 Sta te

s v . Ca v e ra , 550 F.3d 180, 191 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (en ba nc), a nd there fore the district court’s 14 consideration of it is notsubstantively unrea sonable. F inally , “a district c ourt’s re fusal to depa rt 15 from the Guide lines is [ ordinarily] notappea lable.” Un ite d S tates v . D ua rte , 327 F.3d 206, 207 16 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ). Al tho ugh w e wi ll c on sid e r s uc h a n a pp e a l if the dis tr ic t c ourt

inc or re c tly 17 believed it wa s without the power to grant a depar ture, id. , nothing in the r ecor d indicates that the 18 district court suffe red f rom such a misappr ehension. 19 2 0 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

. 21-4- 1 FOR THE COURT: 2 CA TH ERI NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK 3 4 B y: 5 6

____________________________________