T he H onor abl e D avi d G
. T r ager , Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 09-1301 -cr Unit e d S tate s v . Lo ckenwitz 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . CI T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E D E RAL A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T O N ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew 1 6 Y or k, on the 12 dayof M ay , tw o thous and t en. th 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : R O G E R J . M IN E R ,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 19 20 C i r cui tJudges , 2 1 DAV I D G. TRAGER , * 22 D is tr i ct Judge. 23

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 25 2 6 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , 27 v. N o. 09- 1301- cr 28 29 KEV I N LO CK ENW I TZ, 30 D ef endant

-Appel lant . 31 32 33
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 34 3 5 FO R A PPE L L A N T : T er ence L
. K i ndl on, K i ndl on and Sha n k s, P
. C
. , A l bany , N ew 3 6 Y or k, on s ubm i s s i on. 37 3 8 F OR AP P E L L E E : P a u l D. S i l v e r , As s i s t a n t Un i t e d S t a t e s At t o r n e y , ( Rob e r t A. 3 9 Sharpe, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , on the br i ef) for 4 0 A n d rew T
. B ax ter, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yfo r th e N o rth ern 4 1 D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, A l bany , N ew Y or k, on s ubm i s s i on.2 1 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk 2 (N o rm an A
. M o rdu e, C h ief Ju d g e). 3 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND 4 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
. 5 K e v i n L o c k e n w i t z p l e d g u i l ty t o o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a m m u n i t i o n b y a 6 convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) , and the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d 7 hi m t o 46 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . L ockenw i t z appe al s hi s s ent ence . W e as s um e the 8 part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the r el evantfac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e, and the 9 iss u e s p re se n ted in th is a p p e a l. 10 I. P roced u ral U n reason ab l en ess 1 1 W e r evi ew s ent ence s undera “de fer ent i al abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” U ni t ed 1 2 St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) , quot i ng G al l v. U ni t ed 1 3 St at es , 552 U
. S. 38, 41 ( 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. I n comi ng t o a 1 4 pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e s ent ence , a di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i derthe fa ct or s l i s t ed i n 18 1 5 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), in c lu d in g th e a d v iso ryS e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e , an d “ c o n d u c t it s 1 6 ow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the s ent enci ng fac t or s , ai ded bythe ar gum ent s of the 1 7 p ro s e c u tio n a n d d e f e n s e ,” in o rd e r t o re a c h “ a n in f o rm e d a n d in d iv id u a liz e d ju d g m e n t . . . 1 8 as t o w hati s ‘ s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat erthan nec es s ary ’ t o ful fi l l the purpos es of 1 9 s e n te n c in g .” Id ., q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). 2 0 L ockenw i t z ar gues thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the3 1 d istri ct co u rtd id n o t “ad eq u atelyex p lai n w h ythe a rgu m en ts m ad e b ythe d ef en se w ere 2 rejected
. ” B u t th e d istri ct co u rtex p li cit lyad d resse d an d rejected ea ch o f L o ck en w it z’s 3 a rg u m e n ts: 4 ! I n hi s pr e- s ent ence i nt ervi ew , L ockenw i t z cl ai m ed thatthe amm uni t i on 5 b e lo n g e d to h is te n -y e a r o ld so n . A t se n ten c e , the c o u rt d ism iss e d th is 6 ar gum ent , s ay i ng “I di s bel i eve that
. ” 7 ! In a se n ten c in g m e m o ra n d u m , L o c k e n w itz a rg u e d th a t alth o u g h h is 8 C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryof V w as comput ed corr ect l y , thatcal cul at i on 9 over s t at ed the s i gni fi canc e of hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d beca us e hi s cr i m i nal 1 0 h is to ry p o in ts s te m m e d f ro m re m o te c o n v ic tio n s , a n d h e h a s s in c e re f o rm e d
. 1 1 H e the ref o re a sk ed the c o u rtto tr ea t him as if h e w ere a C ri m inal H ist o ry 1 2 C at egoryI I I offe nder
. A ts ent ence , the courtadvi s ed def ens e couns el , “I 1 3 h a v e re v iew e d y o u r m e m o o f law a n d I th in k h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryis 1 4 w her e i ts houl d be. I don’ tthi nk i tover s t at es hi s l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m . ” 1 5 T he courtl at eradded, “I know ther e i s a mot i on i ndi cat i ng the cr i m i nal 1 6 hi s t oryover s t at es the l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m i n thi s cas e . . . . I fi nd that 1 7 n o t to b e th e c a s e .” 18 ! L ockenw i t z’ s s ent enci ng m emo al s o cl ai m ed thathe w as a good hus band 1 9 and fa therw ho w as w or ki ng and pr ovi di ng i ncome forhi s fami l y . T he 2 0 courtdi s m i s s ed thi s l i ne of a r gum ent , fi ndi ng i tnota bas i s forl eni ency 2 1 beca us e “that ’ s r eal l yw hathe s houl d have done , he s houl d be doi ng that
. ” 22 ! A ts ent ence , L ockenw i t z ar gued thathi s daught er s neede d hi m hom e for 2 3 s uppor tbeca us e theyr ece nt l yhad bee n vi ct i m s of “a s exual pr edat or . ” The 2 4 c o u rt sa id , “I h e a r w h a t y o u ’re sa y in g ,” b u t w e n t o n to e x p lain th a t itc o u ld 2 5 no t“dis regar d” the factthat Lo cken w i t z had com m i t t ed the i nst ant offense 2 6 w i thi n a y earof bei ng r el eas ed fr om a l engthyt erm of i ncar cer at i on. 27 2 8 L o c k e n w itz d o e s n o t id e n tif ya n ya rg u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to a d d re s s . 2 9 H i s s ent ence w as ther efor e notpr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e forfai l i ng t o expl ai n the 3 0 reas on s for r ej ect i ng his sent encing co ntent i on s. 31 II. S u b st an ti ve U n reason ab l en ess 3 2 L o c k e n wi t z a r g u e s th a th i s s e n t e n c e wa s s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e f o rtwo4 1 r eas ons : fi r s t , beca us e C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryV over s t at es hi s danger ous nes s and the 2 di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence bas ed on thatcat egory ; and s econd, beca us e the 3 d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e im p o se d a les se r se n ten c e to p e rm it h im to b e a v a ilab le to 4 s u p p o rt h is d a u g h te rs , w h o w e re re c e n t v ic tim s o f s e x u a l c ri m e s . 5 T he s ent ence w as nots ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. A s di s cus s ed above , the di s tr i ct 6 co u rtclea rl yad d resse d an d rejected ea ch o f th ese arg u m en ts. M o reo v er, th e d istri ct co u rt 7 e x p licitlysta ted th a t ith a d c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d sa id “ I d o n ’t se e a b a sis to 8 g o u n d e r th a t w a y . I th in k th e se n ten c e in th e g u id e lin e s is f a ir, i t’s a d e q u a te a n d it m e e ts 9 the requ i rem ents of 3 55 3(a) [, ] and i t ’s no tm ore than i s neede d in this case. ” O n thi s basi s, 1 0 the courts ent ence d L ockenw i t z t o the bott om of the uncha l l enged G ui del i nes r ange of 46 1 1 to 5 7 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. I n l i ghtof Lockenw i t z’ s s er i ous cr i m i nal r ecor d – thr ee 1 2 m isd e m e a n o r c o n v ictio n s, f o u rte e n f e lo n yc o n v ictio n s (a lb e it aris in g o u t o f a sin g le 1 3 i ndi ctm entand r es ul t i ng i n a s i ngl e t erm of i m pr i s onm ent ) , and s i x arr es t s thatdi d not 1 4 af

fe ct his crim inal h ist o rysco re ; the fa ctthathe comm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e w i thi n a 1 5 y earaft erbei ng r el eas ed fr om a l engthyt erm of i ncar cer at i on; and hi s fal s e as s ert i on that 1 6 the amm uni t i on bel onged t o hi s t en- y earol d s on, hi s s ent ence w as w el l w i thi n the l i m i t s of 1 7 the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on. See C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189 ( “W e w i l l
. . . s etas i de a 1 8 d istri ct co u rt ’s su b stan ti v e d eterm ination o n lyin ex ce p ti o n al ca ses w h ere the tri al co u rt ’s 1 9 deci s i on cannotbe l ocat ed w i thi n the r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” ( emphasi s and 2 0 in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s m a rk s o m itte d ))
. 2 1 L ockenw i t z’ s ci t at i on t o othercas es w her e put at i vel ys i m i l ardefe ndant s r ece i ved5 1 dow nw ar d departur es does nots how thatthe courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on her e. T o the 2 ex tent that L o ck en w it z a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred b yfa il ing to d ep art do w n w ard 3 w i thi n the G ui del i nes s y s t em, w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatar gum ent . See U ni t ed 4 St at es v. V al dez, 426 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 2d C i r . 2005) (“ [ A ] re f u sa l to d o w n w a rd lyd e p a rt is 5 gener al l ynotappea l abl e, . . . [exc ept ] w hen a s ent enci ng courtm i s appr ehende d the s cope 6 of i t s author i tyt o departorthe s ent ence w as otherw i s e i l l egal
. ”)
. T o the ext entthathe 7 ar gues thati tw as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e nott o gi ve a l ow ers ent ence , w e r ej ectthat 8 ar gum entforthe r eas ons s t at ed above
. 9 I I I . I m posi t i on of Sent ence C onse cut i ve t o N ot - Y et - I m pose d Stat e Sent ence 1 0 I n a s uppl ement al br i ef, L ockenw i t z ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed bym aki ng 1 1 hi s s ent ence cons ecut i ve t o a s t at e s ent ence thathad noty etbeen i m pos ed. T he 1 2 G overnm entagr ees . See U ni t ed St at es v. D onos o, 521 F. 3d 144, 149 ( 2d C i r . 2008) 1 3 (S ec ti o n 3 5 8 4 (a) o f T it le 18 “d o es n o t auth o ri ze a d istri ct co u rtto d ir ec t th at a d ef en d an t’ s 1 4 f e d e ra l s e n te n c e ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly to a n o t- y e t- im p o s e d s ta te s e n te n c e .” ). 1 5 Si nce Lockenw i t z di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue bef or e the di s tr i ctcourt , w e r evi ew for 1 6 p lain e rro r. U n ited S tate s v . G a m e z , 5 7 7 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T o e sta b lish p lain
err or , L ockenw i t z musts how : “( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, and ( 3) thataff ect s s ubs t ant i al 17 1 8 rig h ts. If

a ll th re e c o n d iti o n s a re m e t, an a p p e llate c o u rt m a yth e n e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to 1 9 not i ce a for fei t ed err or , butonl yi f ( 4) the err ors er i ous l yaff ect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pol oui zzi , 564 F. 3d 142, 20 2 1 1 5 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s, cit ati o n s, an d b rac k ets o m itted).6 1 T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s err ordi d notaff ectL ockenw i t z’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , beca us e he 2 w o u ld h av e se rve d h is sen tenc es c o n sec u ti v elyreg ard less o f w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt 3 im p o sed a c o n sec u ti v e se n tenc e. B ef o re tri al, L o ck en w it z w as in stat e c u stod yfo r a 4 vi ol at i on of par ol e. O n A pr i l 24, 2008, he w as pr oduced i n fede r al courton a w r i tof 5 habea s corpus ad pr os equendum. A ft erhi s M ar ch 17, 2009 fede r al s ent enci ng, he w as 6 r eturned t o N ew Y or k s t at e cus t ody , and the N ew Y or k St at e D i vi s i on of Par ol e s ent ence d 7 h im to 1 6 m o n th s o f p a ro le r e v o c a tio n tim e . A s L o c k e n w itz h im se lf sta tes , h e w a s h e ld in 8 a N ew Y or k s t at e pr i s on unt i l J ul y22, 2009, atw hi ch poi nthe w as m oved t o fede r al pr i s on 9 t o begi n s ervi ng hi s fede r al s ent ence . 1 0 U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , L ockenw i t z’ s fede r al s ent ence coul d notbegi n t o run 1 1 unt i l he w as r el eas ed fr om s t at e cus t odyand r ece i ved bythe fe der al fac i l i tyw her e he w as 1 2 t o s erve hi s s ent ence . See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3585( a) ( “A s ent ence t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent 1 3 comm ence s on the dat e the def endanti s r ece i ved i n cus t odyaw ai t i ng tr ans por t at i on t o, or 1 4 arr i ves vol unt ar i l yt o comm ence s ervi ce of s ent ence at , the off

i ci al det ent i on fac i l i tyat 1 5 w hi ch the s ent ence i s t o be s erved. ”)
. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Fer m i n, 252 F. 3d 102, 108 n. 10 1 6 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( “[A ] defe ndanthel d ata fe der al det ent i on fac i l i tyi s not‘ i n cus t ody ’ forthe purpos es of § 3585( a) w hen he i s pr oduced thr ough a w r i tof habe as corpus ad 17 1 8 pr os equendum. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. L abei l l e- Sot o, 163 F. 3d 93, 98 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( “[T] he 1 9 det erm i nat i on of the pr eci s e dat e on w hi ch a s ent ence begi ns appea r s t o have be en 2 0 i nt ended t o be a mi ni s t er i al deci s i on thatdepends on the t i m i ng of the def endant ’ s arr i val 2 1 atthe appr opr i at e pl ace w i th r es pectt o the s ent ence thati s t o be s erved. ”)
. Si nce he w as7 1 n o t r ec eive d in f

ed era l cus tod yu n ti l after h e c o m p let ed h is st ate se n tenc e, L o ck en w it z’s 2 fede r al s ent ence w oul d run cons ecut i vel yt o hi s s t at e s ent ence r egar dl es s of w hetherornot 3 th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d ir e c te d th a t th e f e d e ra l s e n te n c e ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly to th e s ta te s e n te n c e . 4 T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s err or , ther efor e, di d notaff ectthe s equenc e ordur at i on of 5 L ock enw i t z’s sent ences. 6 F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
. 7 FOR TH E CO UR T: 8 C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt 9 10 11