13-2268

United States v. Spencer

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 Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 14th 4 day of May, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

13 Appellee,

14

15 -v.- 13-2268

16

17 ONTARIO SPENCER, 

18 Defendant-Appellant.

19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

20

21 FOR APPELLANT: DAVID A. LEWIS, Federal

22 Defenders of New York, Inc., New

23 York, New York.

24

25 FOR APPELLEES: LAUREN HOWARD ELBERT (Susan

26 Corkery, on the brief), for

27 Loretta E. Lynch, United States

28 Attorney for the Eastern

1
1 District of New York, Brooklyn,

2 New York.

3

4

5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

6 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.).

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

10 AFFIRMED. 

11

12 Ontario Spencer appeals from a judgment of the United

13 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

14 (Townes, J.), convicting him of escape from custody, in

15 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Spencer argues the

16 district court’s sentence was substantively and procedurally

17 unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

18 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

19 presented for review. 

20

21 We review sentences for reasonableness, United States

22 v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam),

23 which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion,” see

24 United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008)

25 (en banc). This concept applies to both “‘the sentence

26 itself’ and to ‘the procedures employed in arriving at the

27 sentence.’” United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 127

28 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d

29 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2006)). “The procedural inquiry focuses

30 primarily on the sentencing court’s compliance with its

31 statutory obligation to consider the factors detailed in 18

32 U.S.C. § 3553(a), while the substantive inquiry assesses the

33 length of the sentence imposed in light of the § 3553(a)

34 factors.” Id. (internal citations, brackets, and quotation

35 marks omitted). 

36

37 The court appropriately considered all of the

38 information before it, including the submissions made on

39 Spencer’s behalf. Indeed, the arguments presented by

40 Spencer influenced the decision to sentence him at the

41 bottom of the Guidelines range. We conclude that the

42 district court did not abuse its discretion in its

43 sentencing decision. 

44

2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

2 Spencer’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

3 the district court.

4

5 FOR THE COURT:

6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

7

8

9

10

3