08-5581-c r

USA v. Thompson U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r do not hav e prece den tial ef f ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r f iled o n o r after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c o u r t ’ s L o c a l R u l e 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W h e n c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r i n a d o c u me n t fi l e d wit h t his c ourt, a partymust cite eith er the F edera l Appen dixor an electron ic databa se (w ith the n otation “su mmary o r d e r ” ) . A p a r t y c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r mu s t s e r v e a c o p y o f i t o n a n y p a r t y n o t r e p r e s e n ted by co u n 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, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 23 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. rd Present: J OSEPH M. McL AUGHL I N, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, RI CHARD C. W ESL EY,

Circuit Judges
.

____________________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , - v - No. 08-5581-c r NAC DARNEL L E THOMPSON, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt.

____________________________________________________________ For Def endant- Appellant: David M. Samel, Ne w York, N .Y. For Appellee : Amir H. Toossi and David C. J ames, Assistant United States Attorney s, for B e n t o nJ. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Easter n District of Ne w York, B rookly n, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (B ianco, J. ).2

ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Da

rnelle Thompson a

ppeals fr om a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (B ianco, J. ), ente red N ovember 6, 2008, convicting defe ndant, following a guilty plea, of one count of

possessing a

firea rm afte r having been c onvicted of a

felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)( 1) and 924( a)( 2). The district court sente nced de fenda

nt principally

to a term of 84 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts a nd proce dural history

of this case
. De fe nd ant, thr ou g h c ouns e l, c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on a t se nte nc ingto impose a two-leve l enhanc ement to def endant’ s offe nse leve l for possessing a stolen fire arm pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)( 4)(A) . We reviewthe sentenc e imposed by the district court for both proce dural a

nd substantive rea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tates v . R attob all i , 452 F.3d 127, 131- 32 (2d Cir. 2006). “Re asonable ness re view is akin to revie w for a buse of discr etion, under w hich
we c onsider whe ther the se ntencingjudge exceede d the bounds of allowa ble discre tion[ ,] . . . committed an er

ror of law in the cour se of e x erc ising discr etion, or made a cle arly err oneous finding of fa ct.” United States v. W illiams , 475 F.3d 468, 474 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation
mark s o mit te d) . Adis tr ic t c ourt c omm its pr oc e du

ra l e rr or , w he n, fo r i ns tanc e , it “ fa ils to calc ulate the Guide lines rang e” or “make s a mistake in its Guidelines calc ulation.” United States

v . Ca v e ra , 550 F.3d 180, 190 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (en ba nc). “ I n this contex t, we re view fa ctual fi nd ing s f or c le ar e rr or

and the c ourt ’s int e rp re tatio n o f t he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s de novo .” United States v. Thompson , No. 07-0260 (E .D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008)
. The sole issue r aised in this appea l is whether the district c ourt committed proce dural3

err or whe n it impos ed the two- level stolen fire arm e nhance ment. Def endant a rg ues that the enhanc ement violates due proce ss principles and Cong ressional intent bec ause it does not re quire pr oo f t hat th e de fe nd ant k

ne w that th e fi re arm

wa s st ole n. We n e e d n ot a dd re ss t his argume nt, howeve r, bec ause the district court made clea r that its sentence , which wa s “base d on the nature of th[e ] of fe ns e , in lig ht o f [d e fe nd ant’ s] lo ngc ri min a l hi sto ry . . . w ou ld b e the same , r e g ard le ss of whe ther or not [the] enhance ment wer e to apply in this case.” A ccor dingly , beca use “the
re c or d in dic a te s c le arl y

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wo uld have imp os e d th e same se nte nc e ” re g ard le ss of whe ther or not the e nhance ment applies, any claimed e rror

(assuming that there was e rror ), “may be dee med har

mless.” Un ite d S

tates v . J as s , 569 F.3d 47, 69 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (interna l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; see also United States v . Bermingham , 855 F.2d 925, 934 ( 2d Cir. 1988) (“ As long as the sente ncing judge is satisfied that the same se ntence would have be en imposed no matter which of the two g uideline ra

ng es applies, the se ntence should stand.”). We have c onsidered de fenda nt’s rema ining a

rg uments and find them to be without merit. A c c o r d i n g l y, f

o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g m e n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CATHERI

NE O' HAGANWOL FE, CL ERK