1

09- 1618- cr U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e h a b e ld in UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a s um m ar y o r de r filed on or

after Ja nu a ry 1, 2007, is permitt ed and is govern ed by Feder al Rule of Appellate P r oc ed ur e 32 .1 a nd th is cou r t’ s Local Ru le 32. 1.1. Whe n c it in g asu m m ar y o r de r ina d oc um en t f

il ed with th is court, a party must cite either the F ederal Appendix or an electroni c database (with t he notati on “summ ary ord er”). A part y citing a summar

y order must serve a copy of it on any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, h eld at the Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courth ouse, 500 P earl Str eet, in th e City of New York, on the 28 day of June, two th ousand ten.

th Pres ent: R

AL P H K. W I NT ER , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges.

_______________________________________ U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee,

v. 09- 161 8- cr M OHA MMA D S H E H A B E L D IN ,

De fe ndant -A ppella nt .

________________________________________ F OR AP P ELLEE : Raym on d J . L ohier , J r ., A s s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney (Kath er in e P ol k F ailla, As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , of counsel ) for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k, N ew Yo r k, N Y. F OR AP P ELLAN T: C ha rle s F. Wil lso n, Ne vi ns & Ne vi ns LL P, E a st Ha rtfo rd, C T. 1 Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Dis trict of New York 2 (S id ney

H. St ein , Judge

). 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND 5 DECREED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AFFIRMED a nd the ca use is REMAN DE D 6 to the Distr

ict Court for the purpose of allowing the District Court to amend the judgment. 72 1 Def

end ant M oh amm ad S heh abel di n ap peal s fr oma M ar ch 1 0, 2 009 ju dgm ent of th e Di s tr ict 2 Cou r t f

in di ng that

def end ant vio lat ed the t er ms of

hi s s up er vis ed r elea s e ands ent enc ing hi m p r in cip ally 3 to two yea rs ’ imprisonment. On appeal defenda nt argues that the Distr ict Court erred by (1) failing to 4 calc ulate the a pplica ble sentencing range under the United S tates Sentencing Guidelines (“the 5 Guid eli nes ”) ; (

2) faili ng t o co ns id er

adeq uat ely c er tai n f

act or s th at i t m us t c on s id er un der 18 U .S. C. 6 § 3553(a

); (3) failing to expla in adequa tely the rea sons for the District Court’s upward depa rtur e from 7 the sentence suggested by the Guide lines; and (4) imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence on 8 def end ant . We as s um e the p ar ti es ’ f amilia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this 9 cas e. 10 Fo llo wing United Sta tes v. B ook er , 543 U.S. 2 20 (2005), a district court has br oad la titude to 11 “im po s e either

a Gu id eli nes s ent enc e or

a no n- Guid eli nes s ent enc e.” United Sta tes v. Sanchez , 51 7 F .3d 12 651 , 66 0 (

2dCir . 20 08) ; see also United States v. Cavera , 55 0 F .3d180 , 19 0 ( 2dCir . 20 08) (e n b anc)

. 13 Ac co rdi ng

ly , t he rol e o f th e C ou rt o f A pp ea ls i s li mi te d to ex a mi ni ng asen te nc e f

or re a son a bl en ess, 14 whi ch i s aki n t o r evi ew u nd er an “ abu s e- of

-dis cr et io n” s tan dar d. See Cavera , 55 0 F .3dat 1 90; see also 15 Gall v. Uni

ted States, 55 2 U. S. 3 8, 4 1 ( 200 7) (“ [C] ou r ts of

app eals mu s t r evi ew all s ent enc es —wh ether 16 in s id e, j us t o ut s id e, o r s ignif ican tly ou ts id e the G ui del

in es r ang e—u nd er

a def er ent ial 17 abu s e- of

-dis cr et io n s tan dar d. ”) ; cf. Sims v. Blot , 53 4 F .3d117 , 13 2 (

2dCir . 20 08) (“ A di s tr

ict cou r t h as 18 abused its discr etion if it based its ruling on an e rroneous view of the law or on a cle arly erroneous 19 assess ment of the evidenc e, or rendered a dec ision that cannot be loc ated wi thin the range of 20 permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” (alt er ati on , ci tat io ns , an d quo tat

io n m ar ks omit te d) ). T hi s s tan dar d ap pl ies 21 “bo thto th e [s ub s tan ti ve r eas on abl ene s s of

th e] s ent enc e it s elf

andto th e pr oce du r es emp lo yedin 22 ar r ivi ng a t the s ent enc e.” Uni te d St ate s v . V er kho gl y ad , 5 16 F.3 d 1 22 , 1 27 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ). Fin a lly, be ca use 23 defendant faile d to raise his pr ocedural obje ctions before the District Court, we reviewthose claims 24 un der

a “p lai n err or ” s tan dar d. See United States v. Villafu erte, 502 F.3d 204, 20 8 (2d Cir. 2007).3 1 Fi r s t, def

end ant argue s th at his s ent enc e was pr oce du r ally un r eas on abl e be caus e the D is tr ict 2 Cou r t f

ail ed t o cal cul ate th e Gu

id eli nes r ang e. At

th e s ent enc ing pr oce edi ng, ho weve r , the D is tr ict 3 Cou r t c lear

ly r ef er enc ed the f

ou r - t o t en- mo nth r ang e s ugg es te d b y the G ui del in es . A. 21. 4 Nex t, def

end ant argue s th at his s ent enc e was pr oce du r ally un r eas on abl e be caus e the D is tr ict 5 Cou r t f

ail ed t o co ns id er

adeq uat ely c er tai n f

act or s th at i t m us t c on s id er un der 18 U .S. C. § 3 553 (a)

. 6 There is a “str ong presumption that the Dis trict Court faithfully performed its s tatutory obligation to 7 con s id er

th e § 35 53(a) f

act or s .” United Sta tes v. F

ernand ez , 44 3 F .3d19, 33 (

2dCir . 20 06) ; see also United 8 St ate s v . F le ming , 397 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2005) (“As long a s the judge is awa re of both the s tatutory 9 requirements and the sentencing range or ranges that are arguably applic able, and nothing in the rec ord 10 indica tes mis understanding about such materials or mis perception about their releva nce, w e willacc ept 11 that the requisite consideration has occurred.” ). Upon of a reviewof the record, we conc lude that the 12 Di s tr

ict Cou r t did , infa ct , co ns id er th e s tatut or

y f act or s . Acc or di ngl

y, we con clu de that

th e Di s tr ict 13 Cou r t didno t e r r , m uchles s com mi t p lai n err or , b y f ail ing t o co ns id er

th e f act or s s et fo r thin18 U .S. C. 14 § 3553(a

). 15 Nex t, def

end ant argue s th at his s ent enc e was pr oce du r ally un r eas on abl e be caus e the D is tr ict 16 Court failed to expla in why it de cided to depa rt upward fr om the Guidelines sentence. This argument 17 fails because the District Court explaine d at length w hy it imposed a term of incarceration a bove the 18 s ugg es te d s ent enc ing r ang e, s pec if ically ci ti ng d ef

end ant ’s “t ot al dis r egar d f

or s up er vis ed r elea s e.” A. 19 26-27. Because defenda nt has not identified any proceduralerror below, he nece ss arily fails to satisf y 20 hi s weig

ht y bu r denun der

th e “p lai n err or ” s tan dar d. Acco r di ngl y, we con clu de that

def end ant ’s 21 s ent enc e was no t p r oce du r ally un r eas on abl e. 22 Def

end ant als o ar gue s , an d the g ov ernm ent con ced es , that

th e wr it te n j udgm ent

of th e Di s tr ict 23 Court fails to s tate the reasons for the upward depa rtur e from the Guidelines sentence. W here the 24 distr

ict court, as it did here, give s adequate oral e xplana tion for it s upward departure, but has failed to4 1 is s ue a wr

it te n s tat eme nt

of th e r eas on s , we h ave h eldth at the j udgm ent s ho ul d b e af

fi r med , b ut

th at 2 the case should be remande d to the distr ict court “solely for the court to amend its writ ten judgment to 3 com ply with [ 18 U .S. C. §] 355 3( c) (2). ” Uni te d St ate s v . Go ffi , 44 6 F .3d319 , 32 1- 22 (

2dCir . 20 06)

. 4 Fi nally, def

end ant argue s th at the s ent enc e im po s ed w as s ub s tan ti vely un r eas on abl e. 5 Su bs tan ti

ve r eas on abl ene s s is “a co nce pt of fl exi bl e me ani ng, gen er ally lac king pr ecis e bo un dar ies .” 6 Ve rk ho

gl y ad , 516 F.3d at 134 (quotation ma rks and citations omitted). Here, the District Court 7 expla ined at le ngth its r easons for imposing the sentence, a ll of which a re reasonable. W e therefore 8 con clu de that

th e s ent enc e im po s ed b y the D is tr ict Cou r t w as no t s ub s tan ti

vel y un r eas on abl e. 9 CONCLUSI ON 10 For t he re a son s sta te d a bo ve , t he ju dgme nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AFFIRMED a nd the ca use 11 is REMAN DE D to the Distr ict Court for the s ole purpose of allowing the District Court to amend its 12 ju dgm ent

to com ply with 1 8 U. S.C. § 35 53(c) (2) . 13 14 FOR THE C OU R

T: 15 Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk 16 17