1

09-3106 -cr Un i t edSt at es v. R om eo UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER 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 DE NT I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY O RDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L R U LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A DOCUM E NT FI L E D W I T H T HI S COURT, A PA RT Y M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T RONI C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 10 dayof D ece m ber , tw o t hous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, DE NNY C HI N, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 3106- cr P AT RI CK RO M E O,

D ef endant

-Appel l ant .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : JA M ES P. EG A N , Re sear ch & W ri tin g Sp eci al i st (M e lissa A . T u o h e y, A ss ista n t Fe d e ra l Pu b lic D e fe n d e r, on the b r i ef ), f orAl exande rBuni n, Fe der al Publ i c Def

ender , Syr acus e, New York. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E : PA U L D. SI LVER , As s i s t a n t Uni t ed St at es A t t orney( L i s a M
. Fl et cher , A s s i s tant U ni t ed2 S ta te s A t to rn e y , on the br i ef ), f or Ri c ha r d S. H artu n ian, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyfort he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, A l bany , N ew Y or k. 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 (G le n n T . S u d d a b y , Judge ). 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 DE CR E E D th a tt h e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n J u l y1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED
. D efe ndantPat r i ck R om eo w as co nvi ct ed, fol l ow i ng a gui l t ypl ea, of one c ountof fai l i ng t o r egi s t erorupdat e hi s r egi s tr at i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Sex O ffe nderR egi s t r at i on and N o ti f ic a tio n A c t (“ S O R N A ” ). S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 (a ). R o m e o o rig in a llya p p e a led h is convi ct i on on the gr ounds tha t SO R N A ’s reg istrati o n req u ir em en ts w ere u n co n sti tuti onal and d id n o t ap p lyto R o m e o a t th e tim e o f h is fa ilu re to re g iste r. R o m e o f u rth e r c h a llen g e d h is
s ent ence of 66 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on, a var i ance fr om hi s 27- t o- 33- m ont h G ui del i nes r ange,
as both pr ocedur al l y and s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e. W e aff i r m ed R om eo’ s convi ct i on, but
r emanded hi s s ent ence t o t he di s t r i ct cour t for cons i der at i on of w hether an ide n ti fied p roc ed u ral erro r h ad b ee n h arm less. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. R o m eo , 3 8 5 F
. A p p ’x 4 5 (2d C ir
. 2010)
. W e di d not r eac h t he subs t ant i ve re as onabl enes s chal l enge, but l eft i t open t o ei ther partyt o i nvoke the j ur i s di ct i on of thi s cour t t o cons i der a subs equent appea l fr om t he di s tr i ct
cour t ’ s fi nal deci s i on. See i d. at51
. O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour ti ndi cat ed thatt he p ro c e d u ra l er ro r h a d b e e n h a rm les s. R o m e o n o w in v o k e s th is c o u rt’s ju risd ictio n to h e a r h is3

s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s chal l enge a nd r eques t s perm i s s i on t o s ubm i t addi t i onal br i efi ng. We a s s u me t h e p a r t i e s ’ f a mi l i a r i t ywi t h th e f

a c t s a n d r e c o r d o f p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we
r e f e r e n c e o n l ya s n e c e s s a r yt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. W e r evi ew s ent enci ng chal l enges underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d that “i nco rporat es de nov o r eview of quest i on s of l aw (i ncludi ng i nterpret at i on of the G uidel i nes) and cl ear - err or r evi ew of ques t i ons of fac t . ” U ni t ed St at es v. L egr os , 529 F. 3d 470, 474 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc)
. “A
s ent enci ng j udge has veryw i de l at i tude t o deci de the pr o p er d egr ee of puni s hm entforan ind ividu al of

fe n d er a n d a p arti cu lar cri m e,” a n d w e w il l “set aside a d istri ct co u rt ’s
s ubs t ant i ve det erm i nat i on onl yi n exce pt i onal cas es w her e the t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on cannot be l ocat ed w i t hi n t he r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at 1 8 8
- 8 9 ( e mp h a s i s a n d i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma rk s o mi t t e d )
. T h e q u e s t i o n i s n o twh e t h e rwe “mi ghtr eas onabl y have concl uded thata di ffe r ents ent ence w as appr opr i at e. ” G al l v. U ni t ed S tate s, 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). W e c o n sid e r o n ly“ w h e th e r th e se n ten c e im p o se d f a lls w ith in the br oad r ange t hat can be cons i der ed r eas onabl e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 531 F. 3d 163, 1 7 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). B eca us e the is s ue of s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s w as t hor oughl yaddr es s ed i n t he p a rties ’ o rig in a l b r ie f

s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t n o f u rth e r b rie f

in g is n e c e ss a rya n d th e m a tter is
r i pe for deci s i on. R om eo ar gues t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t r el i ed t oo heavi l y on al l ega ti o n s of4

conductdi s t i nctfr om t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on – i nappr opr i at e cont actw i t h chi l dr en dur i ng hi s per i od of non-r egi s t r at i on – i n deci di ng t o varyupw ar ds fr om the G ui del i nes r ange of 27 t o 33 m onths t o a sent ence of 66 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on. H e cont ends t hatt hes e al l egat i ons l acke d s uffi ci entevi dent i arys uppor tt o j us t i fys uch a va r i ance . W e ar e notper s uaded. T he d ist ri ctcourtfound bya pr eponder ance of the r ecor d evi dence t hatR om eo “comm i t t ed a s ex o ff

ense a gai ns tm or e than one mi noras an unr egi s t er ed s ex off enderby t ouchi n g a n d ru b b i n g t h e i r i n n e r t h i g h s a n d b y p u l l i n g t h e m u p a g a i n s t [ h i s ] b o d yand rub b ing u p ag ains t the m as w ell as h av ing them take sh o w ers at [ h is] reside n ce w h il e the re
w as no adul ts upervi s i on pr es ent . ” Sent enci ng T r . at 9- 10, U ni t ed S t at es v. R om eo, N o. 08- C R
- 694 ( N
. D
. N
. Y
. J ul y 14, 2009)
. A ft er cons i der i ng t he r equi r ed s t atut oryfac t or s , s ee 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , t he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded thatan above
- G ui del i nes s ent ence w as
w arr ant ed due t o bot h “aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s of a ki nd and t o a degr ee tha tar e not adequa t el y t aken i nt o cons i der at i on byt he” G ui del i nes , and the nee d t o pr ot ectt he publ i c and pr ovi de ade quat e s peci fi c det err ence , Sent en cing T r. at10- 11. O n thi s r ecor d, w e do not deem t hi s one of the “e xcept i onal cas es w her e the tr i al court ’ s d ec isi on cannotbe l ocat ed
w i thi n t he r ange of perm i s s i bl e deci s i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189 ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h u s, w e re jec t th e c la im th a t th e se n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly
unr eas onabl e.5

W e h av e c o n side red R o m eo ’s o ther arg u m en ts o n ap p ea l an d co n clud e tha t th eyare
w i thoutm er i t. A cc o rdingl y , w e D E N Y t he r eques tforfur t herbr i efi ng and A FFIRM t he ju d g m e n t. FOR TH E CO UR T: 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