13-2268 United States v. Spencer



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of May, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 12 **Appellee ,**  13 14 **-v.- 13-2268** 15 16 **ONTARIO SPENCER,** 17 **Defendant-Appellant**

**.** 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 19 20 **FOR APPELLANT:** DAVID A. LEWIS, Federal 21 Defenders of New York, Inc., New 22 York, New York. 23 24 **FOR APPELLEES:** LAUREN HOWARD ELBERT (Susan 25 Corkery, on the brief ), for 26 Loretta E. Lynch, United States 27 Attorney for the Eastern 28

1District of New York, Brooklyn, 1 New York. 2 3 4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 5 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J. ). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 9 **AFFIRMED**

. 10 11 Ontario Spencer appeals from a judgment of the United 12 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 13 (Townes, J. ), convicting him of escape from custody, in 14 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) . Spencer argues the 15 district court’s sentence was substantively and procedurally 16 unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 18 presented for review. 19 20 We review sentences for reasonableness, United States 21 v. Cossey , 632 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam), 22 which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion,” see 23 United States v. Cavera , 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008) 24 (en banc). This concept applies to both “‘the sentence 25 itself’ and to ‘the procedures employed in arriving at the 26 sentence.’” United States v. Verkhoglyad , 516 F.3d 122, 127 27 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Fernandez , 443 F.3d 28 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2006)). “The procedural inquiry focuses 29 primarily on the sentencing court’s compliance with its 30 statutory obligation to consider the factors detailed in 18 31 U.S.C. § 3553(a), while the substantive inquiry assesses the 32 length of the sentence imposed in light of the § 3553(a) 33 factors.” Id. (internal citations, brackets, and quotation 34 marks omitted). 35 36 The court appropriately considered all of the 37 information before it, including the submissions made on 38 Spencer’s behalf. Indeed, the arguments presented by 39 Spencer influenced the decision to sentence him at the 40 bottom of the Guidelines range. We conclude that the 41 district court did not abuse its discretion in its 42 sentencing decision. 43 44

2For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 1 Spencer’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 2 the district court. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 6 7 8 9 10

3