The Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Court for the *

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

09-1218-cr

United States v. Gaskin

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 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 25 day of May, two thousand and ten. th

5

6 PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 Circuit Judges,

9 PAUL A. CROTTY,

10 District Judge.

*

11 

12

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

14

15 Appellee,

16

17 -v.- 09-1218-cr

18

19 RALPH CRUICKSHANK JR. also known as 

20 Trini, and AL CASTLE,

21

22 Defendants,

23

24 WAYNE GASKIN, also known as Atiba,

25

26 Defendant-Appellant.

27 

28

29

30
2

1 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES S. WOLFORD, The Wolford

2 Law Firm, LLP, Rochester, NY.

3

4 FOR APPELLEE: STEPHAN J. BACZYNSKI, Assistant

5 United States Attorney, for 

6 Kathleen M. Mehltretter, United

7 States Attorney for the Western

8 District of New York, Buffalo,

9 NY. 

10

11 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

12 Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.).

13

14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is

16 AFFIRMED.

17 Defendant Wayne Gaskin appeals the denial of his motion

18 to vacate and correct his sentence. We presume the parties’

19 familiarity with the facts of the case, which are set forth

20 in the decision affirming Gaskin’s conviction on direct

21 appeal. See United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 445-51

22 (2d Cir. 2004). 

23 Following our decision, Gaskin filed the instant motion

24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he had received

25 ineffective assistance of counsel and that his sentence was

26 unlawfully imposed. The district court denied the motion in

27 part, and scheduled, sua sponte, a sentencing proceeding

28 based on United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.

29 2005). Gaskin v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 2d 247, 259
3

1 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). The court declined, however, to issue a

2 certificate of appealability with respect to defendant’s

3 ineffective assistance claims. See id.

4 At the sentencing proceeding on March 4, 2009, the

5 district court noted that it had accepted submissions from

6 defendant’s counsel, and it discussed the application of

7 both the now-advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the factors

8 set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Defendant’s counsel did

9 not offer additional argument at the proceeding itself, and

10 the district court then declined to resentence defendant. 

11 At the end of the proceeding the court indicated that

12 defendant could appeal its ruling, which we regard as

13 sufficient to permit the present appeal. 

14 On appeal, defendant does not challenge the

15 resentencing procedure applied by the district court and

16 instead argues that his sentence is unreasonable. 

17 Specifically, he contends that the court failed to “properly

18 take into consideration the similarities” between himself

19 and Al Castle, one of his co-defendants. However, the

20 record reflects that Gaskin is not, in fact, similarly

21 situated with Castle. Therefore, the district court was

22 well within the bounds of its discretion to conclude that
4

1 the disparity between the sentences imposed on Gaskin and

2 Castle was not “unwarranted.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). 

3 We have considered each of Gaskin’s arguments in this

4 appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the

5 judgment of the district court is affirmed.

6

7 FOR THE COURT:

8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

9

10