16-25 25

Unite d Sta tes v . Del Vall e



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C O U RT O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M AR Y O RD E R

R U L I N G S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E P R E C E D E N T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y O R D E R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S P E R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R U L E O F A P P E L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R U L E 32.1.1. WHE N C I T I N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R I N A D O C U M E N T F I L E D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N

D I X O R A

N E L E C T R O N I C DA T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y O R D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I N G A S U

M M A R Y O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E P R E S E N T E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.

At a state d ter m of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, on th e 5 day of Ju ly, t wo th ousan d sev entee n.

th

PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS,

PIERRE N. LEVAL , REENA RAGG I, Circu it Ju dges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITE D STA TES O F AME RICA,

Appel lee,

-v.- 16-25 25

JOSEP H DEL VALL E,

Defen dant- Appel lant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

FOR A PPELL ANT: BREND AN WH ITE, White & Wh ite, New Y ork, NY.

FOR A PPELL EE: DAMIA N WIL LIAMS (Aim ee He ctor and B rian R. Bl ais, on th e brief ), fo r Joo n H. Kim, Actin g Unite d Sta tes A ttorn ey fo r the South ern D istri ct of New York.

1Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct

Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Berma n, J. ).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be AFFIR MED

.

Defen dant Josep h Del Vall e ple aded guilt y to vario us fraud char ges i n the Unit ed St ates Distr ict C ourt for t he South ern D istri ct of New York (Berm an, J .). Del V alle does not c halle nge h is co nvict ion; his o nly a rgume nt on appe al is that his 9 8-mon th se ntenc e is subst antiv ely u nreas onabl e. We as sume the p artie s’ fa milia rity with the u nderl ying facts , the proc edura l his tory, and the i ssues pres ented for revie w.

We re view sente nces for “ reaso nable ness, ” whi ch is “a parti cular ly de feren tial form of ab use-o f-dis creti on revie w.” Unite d Sta tes v . Bro xmeye r, 69 9 F.3 d 265 , 278 (2d Cir. 2012) (quo ting Unite d Sta tes v . Cav era, 550 F .3d 1 80, 188 & n.5 (2d C ir. 2 008) (in b anc)) . We will over turn a sente nce f or su bstan tive unrea sonab lenes s onl y if “the trial court ’s de cisio n ‘ca nnot be lo cated with in th e ran ge of permi ssibl e dec ision s.’” Caver a, 55 0 F.3 d at 189 ( quoti ng Unite d Sta tes v . Rig as, 4 90 F. 3d 10 8, 11 4 (2d Cir. 2007 )).

Del V alle’ s wit hin-G uidel ines sente nce i s rea sonab le. Del V alle perpe tuate d his frau d for appr oxima tely ten y ears and h e mis appro priat ed mo re th an $5 mill ion. To c onvin ce inves tors to fu nd hi s sch emes, Del Valle fabr icate d ema ils (purp ortin g to be wr itten by f amous chef s and busin esspe ople) that expr essed supp ort f or De l Val le’s busin ess v entur es, a nd th en se nt th e fra udule nt em ails to poten tial clien ts to rais e mon ey. When some clien ts be gan to be susp iciou s and requ ested docu menta tion, Del Valle false ly as sured them that he w as ha ving finan cial state ments prepa red t hat w ould be se nt to the inves tors short ly. Del Valle had previ ously been conv icted of c rimin al po ssess ion of a forge d ins trume nt.

In ar guing that his sente nce i s too oner ous, Del V alle empha sizes that he w orked hard in a new busin ess v entur e so that he co uld m ake m oney in or der t o pay rest ituti on, a nd that one o f the frau d vic tims conti nued to co nduct busi ness with him a fter Del V alle plead ed gu ilty. Del Vall e con tends that this shows his work ethic , bus iness sens e, an d ref ormed chara cter. He also conte nds t hat t he di stric t cou rt

2inade quate ly co nside red h is pe rsona l cha racte risti cs, n amely

that he is sixt y yea rs ol d and is d evote d to his f amily

.

These cont entio ns ar e una vaili ng. The d istri ct co urt consi dered all of De l Val le’s argum ents, weig hed t hem again st th e agg ravat ing f actor s, an d arr ived at hi s 98- month sente nce. In l ight of th e mag nitud e of Del V alle’ s fra ud, the d eviou s mea ns he empl oyed to bi lk hi s vic tims, and other facto rs me ntion ed by the distr ict c ourt, we c annot say that Del V alle’ s sen tence was outsi de th e “ra nge o f per missi ble decis ions. ” Ca vera, 550 F.3d at 18 9.

In pa rticu lar, we ar e unp ersua ded b y Del Vall e’s relia nce o n his entr y int o a n ew bu sines s ven ture with a forme r vic tim i n ord er to reco mpens e his othe r vic tims. At most, Del Valle is a rguin g tha t the dist rict court affo rded insuf ficie nt we ight to th is fa ctor, but when “the ultim ate sente nce i s rea sonab le . . . w e wil l not seco nd gu ess t he weigh t (or lack ther eof) that the j udge accor ded t o a g iven facto r or to a speci fic a rgume nt ma de pu rsuan t to that facto r.” Unite d Sta tes v . Pop e, 55 4 F.3 d 240 , 246 -47 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (quo ting Unite d Sta tes v . Fer nande z, 44 3 F.3 d 19, 34 (2 d Cir . 200 6)). Del Valle ’s se ntenc e is reaso nable , and we do not distu rb it

.

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , and find ing n o mer it in Del Valle ’s ot her a rgume nts, we he reby AFFIR M the j udgme nt of the d istri ct co urt.

FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

3