08-6292 -cr

Unite d State s v . Mos t 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 ARY O R 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 . C I T A T I ON T O A 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 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 R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN 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 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 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourt of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y ork, on the 8 dayof J une, tw o thous and t en. th PRE SEN T: J O SE A
. CA BR A N ES,

BARRI NGTON D
. P ARKER, R E E N A R A G G I, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , Appel l ee , v. N o. 08- 6292- cr KA RL A
. M OST, D ef endant

-Appel lant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- F O R A P P E L L A N T : S tuart J. G ross m an, G ross m an & R i naldo, F orest H i l l s , N ew Y ork. FOR APPELLEE : B ent on J
. Ca mpb e l l , Uni t e d St a t e s At t o rn e y for the E ast ern D i stri ctof N e w Y ork (Eli zabeth J. K r amer , J ack D ennehy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt orney s , of couns el ) , B r ookl yn, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f ro m th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (S a n d ra L . T o w n e s , Judge ).2

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 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt e n ter e d o n D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , is AF F I RMED
. K ar l M os tchal l enges the r eas onabl enes s of a 60
- m onth t erm of i ncar cer at i on i m pos ed f o r v io latio n o f

th e su p e rv ise d re lea se c o m p o n e n t o f h is S o u th e rn D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia
sen tence fo r posses si on of m etham ph et am i ne w i th int ent t o d i stri bu t e. S pecifi cal l y , M ost cont ends that60 m onths ’ i ncar cer at i on i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the vi ol at i on t o w hi ch he pleaded g uil ty : travel i ng t o N ew Y ork w i tho ut perm i ssi on . In ass essi ng a reas on ableness ch all en g e, w e do n o t “su b sti tut[e] .
. . o u r jud g m en t fo r that o f th e se n tenc ing jud g e. R athe r, the s t andar d i s aki n t o r evi ew for abus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fernandez , 443 F. 3d 19 , 27 (2d C i r. 20 06 ); see G al l v. U nit ed S t at es, 55 2 U
. S
. 38 , 51 (2007 ). In apply i ng these pr i nci pl es t o thi s appea l , w e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i ty w i th the fa ct s and the r ecor d of p r i o rp 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 ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1. R easona bleness
a. P rocedu ral R easona bleness T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatpr i ort o i m pos i ng the cha l l enged se nt ence , the di s tr i ct
courtaff or ded couns el and def

endantan opportuni ty t o be hear d. T hus , any cl ai m thatthe
courtpr ecl uded def

endantfr om s peaki ng on the reco rd i n vi ol at i on of Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 32 l acks s upport . T he courtal s o pr oper l yi dent i fi ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange a s seven t o thi rt een mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n det erm i ni ng thats i xtym onths ’ i m pr i s on m en t – the3

s t atut orym axi m um – w as the pr opers ent ence , the courtnoted M o st’ s l ong hi s t oryof
s upervi s ed re lease v i ol at i ons , hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V , and the s i gni fi cant d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re h e re c e iv e d in th e u n d e rly in g c rim in a l ca se . T h e se f a c to rs a d e q u a tely
ex p lai n the co urt ’ s concl us i on thatM os thad “s how n, once a gai n, . . . that[he w oul d] not obeythe condi t i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e, ” and thathe t her efor e “m us t be i ncapa ci t at ed for
as l ong as pos s i bl e. ” Sent ’ g T r . at26; s ee G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U
. S. at50 ( not i ng that

“ a m a j o rd e p a rtu r e [ f

r o m th e r e c o m m e n d e d G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e ] s h o u l d b e s u p p o rt e d b y a
m o re s ig n if

ic a n t ju s tif

ic a tio n th a n a m in o r o n e ” ). A s w e h a v e o b s e rv e d o n n u m e ro u s o c c a s io n s , n o “ s p e c if ic v e rb a l f

o rm u la tio n s ,” U ni t ed St at es v. Fl emi ng, 397 F. 3d 95, 100 ( 2d C i r . 2005) , or “r obot i c i ncant at i ons , ” U ni t ed S tate s v . F e rn a n d e z , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 3 0 ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ), ar e re q u ire d to d e m o n stra te a d istric t co u rt’s a d e q u a te c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e sta tu to r y f

a c to rs r e lev a n t to
s ent encing
. H er e, the abl e and e xper i ence d di s tr i ctj udge di s cus s ed notonl ythe natur e of M os t ’ s vi ol at i on – w hi ch i nvol ved t he com m i s s i on of another drug cr i m e on hi s tr i p t o N ew Y ork – and hi s per s onal char act er i s t i cs and hi s t ory , butal s o the nee d t o det erand pr ot ectthe p u b lic f ro m re p e a ted su p e rv ise d re lea se v io latio n s tha t in v o lv e d c rim in a l ac tiv ity . O n th is
r ecor d, w e ea s i l yconcl ude thatthe j udge ade quat el y cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s . See U n it ed S tat es v . V erk h o g ly ad , 5 1 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 2 , 1 3 2 -3 4 (2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ing d ef en d an t’ s repeat ed v i olat i on s of l aw aft er r ecei pt of l enient sent ences i n ex plai ning dec i si on t o im po se 5 7 -m o n th se n tenc e f

o r vio lat ion o f p rob ati o n ).4

W e th e re f

o re re je c t M o s t’ s c la im o f

p ro c e d u ra l u n re a s o n a b le n e s s a s w ith o u t m e ri t. b. S ub st anti ve R easona bleness W e sim il arly reject M o st’ s claim o f su b stan ti v e u n rea so n ab lene ss. I n li g h t of M o st’ s
e x ten siv e c rim in a l h isto ry , rep e a ted v io latio n s o f su p e rv ise d re lea se , in te n t to lie to h is p rob ati o n o ff

icer to p roc u re p erm issi o n to trav el, an d rec eipt o f a sign ifi ca n t do w n w ard d e p a rtu re in h is u n d e rly in g c rim in a l c a se , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a 6 0 -m o n th se n ten c e f e ll w ith in the br oad di s cr et i on of the di s tr i ctcourt . See U ni t ed S t at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng thats ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel y u n rea so n abl e onl yw her e i t“ca nnotbe lo c a te d w ith in th e ra n g e o f p e rm is s ib le d e c is io n s ” (i n te rn a l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)); acc o rd U n ite d S ta te s v . J o n e s , 5 3 1 F .3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 4 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2. C oncl us i on W e hav e con si dered M ost ’s rem ai ning ar gu m ents , i ncludi ng tho se subm i tt ed in h is pr o s e s uppl ement al br i efs , and conc l ude that they l ack mer i t . A ccor di ngl y , the D ece m ber 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED
.

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 urt