Th e H on ora ble Jed S. Rako ff

, o f t he Un ite d S tat es D ist

ric t C ourt f

or t he So uth ern * Districtof New York, sitting by designat ion. 1 09 -1 28 5- cr Un ite d S tat es v. G on zal ez



### UNI TED ST ATES COURT OF APP EALS FO R TH E SE C O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R
RULI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORD ER DO NOT HAVE P RECE DENT I AL EF F ECT . CI TAT I ON TO A S UM M ARY O R D E R F I L E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R MI T T E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y F E D E RA L R UL E OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D OCUM ENT F I LE D W I TH THI S C OURT, A P ARTY M US T C I TE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL AP P ENDI X OR AN ELE CTRONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I TH T HE NOT ATI ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY OR DER M US T S ERVE A C OPY OF I T ON AN Y PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL.

At a st ate d te rm

of the Un ite d S tat es C ourt o f A pp eal s f or t he Se co nd

Ci rcu it, he ld at the Danie l P atr ick

Mo yn ihan Unit ed

St ate s C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in t he Ci ty o f N ew York, on the 6 day of April, two thousand te n.

th PRESENT : AMALYA L . KEARSE ,

PETER W . HALL,

Ci rcu it J ud ges , JED S. RAK OFF,

District Judge
. *

__________________________________________ Un ite d S tat es o f Am eri ca,

Ap pe lle e , v. 09 -12 85 -cr Ju anSa ez, als o k

no wn as K ing , F rankli n R ive ra, als o k no wn as F ab io V an eg as, als o k no wn as Fr an cis Ri ve ra, als o k

no wn as F ab io Rive ria , M arg are t Ma ldo na do , E ug en e Ma ck , C ynthi a Simpson, De

fen da nts , Jai m e G on zal ez, als o k

no wn as E nz o G roj ale s, als o k

no wn as E ns o G raj ale s, als o k

no wn as J am ie Go nz ale z, Defendant-Appell ant .

__________________________________________2

FOR APP ELLANT: B. A LA N S EI DLER ; L awOf fi ce o f B ern ard

Al anSe idl er, Es q. ; New York, NY. FOR APP ELLEE: C AROL YN P OKOR NY , A ssi stant Unit ed St ate s A tto rne y, Of

Co un sel , Br oo klyn, NY(B enton

J. Cam pb ell , Unit ed

St ate s A tto rne y f

or t he Ea ste rn Districtof New York; Em ily Berger, Assi stant Unite d States Attorney, Of Counsel, on thebr ief

). Ap pe al f rom a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he Ea ste rn D ist

ric t of Ne w York (Johnson, J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERA TION it is hereby O RDERE D, ADJUD GED, AND DE CREED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED. De fe nd ant-App ell ant Ja im e G on zal ez a pp eal s f rom the dis tri ct c ourt’ s 1 ) de nia l of his motion for recusal and 2) Mar ch 26, 2009 order sent encing him principall y to life imprisonment. W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with t he facts, procedur al history, and specificat ion of issues on ap pe al. W e review a dis trictcourt’s de nial of a recusa l motion for abuse of discretion. Un ite d S tates v. Thompson , 7 6 F .3 d 4 42 , 4 51 (2d Ci r. 1 99 6). He re, we fi nd no ne . Ajud ge sh all rec us e h im sel f i f “h is i m parti ali ty m ight re aso na

bly be qu est ion ed .” 28 U. S. C. § 4 55 (a) . “ [R ]e cu sal m oti on s ar e to be m ad e at

the ear lie st p os sib le m om ent af ter ob tai nin g k

no wl ed ge of

fa cts de m on str ati ng the ba sis fo r su cha cl aim .” Lo Ca sci o v . U nited Sta tes , 473 F.3d 493, 497 (2d Cir. 2007) (i nternal quot ation
m ark s o m itt ed ). G on zal ez argu es, fi rst , w ith out ci tin g anyrel ev ant le ga l autho rity, that th e d istric t
co urt err ed in d enyin g h is m oti on

fo r re cu sal on

gro un ds that th e se nte nc ing jud ge did no t pr esi de at tri al. Th is argum ent ha s b een av ail ab le t o G on zal ez s inc e th e o rig ina l se nte nc ing pro cee din g in June 2003. Gonzalez only s ought to make this argument, however, following the se cond sentenci ng pro cee din g b ef

ore Ju dg e Jo hn so n, an d th us it h as b een

wa ive d. Mo reo ve r, e ve n if the arg um ent ha s not been waived by Gonzale z’s lack of pri or objecti on, he cites no a uthority, a nd we find none, for his content ion that t he impartialit y of a sentencing judge who did not preside at the tr ial phase i s, by virtue of thatfact alone, in di spute. Gonzalez a lso argues t hat the st ring of adverse se ntencing3

rul ing s b y th e co urt

fo rm s an ad eq uate b asi s f

or t he jud ge ’s r ecu sal . R ecu sal m oti on s g en era lly
m us t be gro un de d o n “ ex tra jud ici al m att ers ,” ho we ve r, and “ad ve rse rul ing s, wi tho ut m ore , w ill
rar ely su ff ice to p rov ide a re aso na

ble ba sis fo r qu est ion inga ju dg e’s im parti ali ty. ” Ch en v. Ch en Qualified Set tlement Fund , 552 F.3d 218, 227 (2d Cir. 2009). Gonzalez has pointed t o nothing other than t he court’s adverse rul ings, and such rul ings are i nsufficient. Id. Re gardi ng his senten ce, Go nz ale z m ak es t hre e p rin cip al argum ents. He co nte nd s f irs t th at be cau se t he jur y f ound him gu ilty o f c on du ct i nv olv ing50 gram s o r m ore of co cai ne ba se, wh ich under the Sente ncing Guideline s carri es a recomm ended sentence of 121-151 m onths, a life sentence vi olates hi s Sixth Amendm ent right s as recogni zed in Apprendi v. Un ite d S tates , 530 U.S. 46 6 (2 00 0), that “[ o] the r th anthe fa ct o f a pri or c onvic tio n, any f

act that in cre ase s th e p en alty f or a crime beyond the prescr ibed statutory maxim um m ust be submitted to a j ury, and proved beyond a
rea so na ble do ub t.” Id . at 49 0. Th is argum ent, h ow ev er, ign ore s th at the statut e und er whic h Gonzalez was convict ed prescri bes a sentenc ing range of ten year s to life imprisonment. Se e 21 U. S. C. § 8 41 (b) (1) (A ). “ [T ]h e ‘s tat uto ry m ax im

um ’ f or Apprendipurposes is t he maxim um
senten ce a

jud ge m ayim

po se so lel y o n th e b as is o

f th e fa cts ref

lec ted in t hejur y ve rd ict or ad mi tte d by the defendant .” Blakely v. W ashington , 5 42 U. S. 29 6, 30 3 (2 00 4) ( em ph asi s in ori gin al) . B ase d on Gonzalez’s convi ction, a li fe sentence falls s quarely withi n that “st atutory maximum .” Gonzalez next ar gues that t he sentence i mposed by the districtcourt was unrea sonable. Re vie w f or r eas on ab len ess is “ ak in t o re vie w f or a bu se o f d isc ret ion .” Un ite d S tates v . F ern an de z , 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir. 2006). We review sentences for both procedural and substanti ve reasonable ness. Un ite d S tates v . C av era , 550 F.3d 180, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2008) ( en banc). A
senten ce i s p roc ed

ura llyunrea so na

ble if , f or e xam ple , a co urt m ist ak en ly c alc ulates the Gu ide lin es
ran ge , f ail s ad eq uatel y to expla in i ts s enten ce, fa ils co m ple tel y to co ns ide r th e Guid eli ne s o r, conversely, t reats t he Guidelines a s mandatory. Id. at 190. In the absence of evidence showing4

otherwise, i t is pres umed “that a sentencing j udge has faithfully dis charged her dut y to considerthe statutory factors” li sted in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Verkhoglyad , 516 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Ci r. 2 00 8) ( int ern al q

uo tat ion m ark s o m itt ed ). I f w e d ete rm ine that th e se nte nc e is pro ced ura lly reasonable , we then turn to i ts substant ive reasonableness. Ca vera , 5 50 F. 3d at 1 89 -90 . W e w ill fi nd a se nte nc e su

bs tantiv ely

unrea so na

ble “o nly in e xc ep tio na l ca ses wh ere the tri al c ourt’ s de cis ion canno t be loc ate d w ith in t he ran ge of

pe rm iss ibl e d eci sio ns .” Id. at 189 (int ernal quota tion
m ark s o m itt ed ). W ith out dr aw inga d ist inc tio n b etw een su bs tantiv e an d p roc ed

ura l unrea so na

ble ne ss, Gonzalez argues that the l ife sentence i s unreasonabl e on the basis that the j ury convicte d him of
co nd uc t invo lvi ng on ly 5 0 g ram s, that he is 4 4 y ear s o ld, lac ks a cr im ina l hi sto ry, ha s f am ily de pe nd en ts and

a h ist ory of em plo ym ent, and

that th e 1 00 :1 r ati o f

or p en alt ies fo r co nd

uc t inv olv ing cra ck

co cai ne co m

pared wi th c on du ct i nv olv ingpo wd er c oc ain e is “d rac on ian .” Th is Court consider ed and rejec ted many of these arguments in an earlie r appeal. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Go nz ale z , 251 Fed. Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2007). Gonzalez ha s proffered no persuasi ve reason for dis tur bin g th os e p rio r ru lin gs . It is c lear f rom the pro cee din gs be low

that th e d ist

ric t co urt ad eq uatel y c on sid ere d th e f

act ors in § 35 53 (a) . W e cann ot s ayon the ba sis of

Go nz ale z’s arg um en ts that th e se nte nc e im po sed wa s ei the r pr oc ed

ura llyor s ub stanti ve ly u

nre aso na ble
. Fi na lly , G on zal ez argu es t hat th e d ist

ric t co urt rel ied on the err on eo us be lie f t

hat G on zal ez had been previous ly deported be cause of criminal acti vity. In re -imposing the life sente nce, the
co urt stated that it ha d “ tak [e n] int o c on sid eratio n a ll o f [ the fa cto rs i n § 35 53 (a) ], inc lud ingthe fa ct that th is d ef

en dant w as d ep ort ed , th enhe cam e b ack to t his co untryan d h e re sum ed sel lin g d rug s. ” Sentencing Trans cript, Ma rch 26, 2009, at 5-6. Gonzal ez did not obje ct to or eve n comm ent upon thi s st ate m ent at

the res enten cin g h ear ing . Atim ely ob jec tio n is ge ne ral ly r eq

uir ed to p res erv e an issue for appeal
. United States v. Ciak , 1 02 F. 3d 38 , 4 5 (2 d C ir. 19 96 ). I ssu es t hat ar e n ot p rop erl y5

preserved a re revie wed for plain error
. Id. “Afi nd ingof pla in e rro r re qu ire s (1 ) er ror , (2 ) th at i s pla in, an d (3 ) th at a ff

ect s th e d ef

en dant’ s su

bs tantia l ri gh ts. ” Un ite d S tates v . G om ez , 580 F.3d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (i nternal quot ation marks omitted). Nothing in the record shows tha t in the course of resent encing Gonzalez t he court re lied in subs tantial part on any re ason underlyi ng Go nz ale z’s pri or d ep ort ati on . T o th e ex tent th at the co urt m ayhave rel ied

on a m ist ak en understandi ng in its expl icit cons iderati on of the § 3553(a) factors , it does not r ise to the level of plain err or, given thatthe court pr eviously (a ) imposed the same life sentence on Gonzalez , (b)
expre ssl y to ok

int o a cco unt G on zal ez’ s co nte nti on that he ha d n ev er b een

de po rte d, an d (c ) st ate d that itwas “going to impose the same sentence whetherhe was deported ornot.” Sentenci ng Transcript , March 31, 2006, at 7- 8. Accordingly, any misundersta nding at the most recent sentencing was a t worst a minor factor among all those cons idered by the court at t he time of the Mar ch26 , 2 00 9 s enten cin g. Whe the r or no t it wa s er ror , g ive n it s demi nim is natur e, the err or w as not plain, and we wil l not disturb the sent ence on that ba sis. W e have consider ed all of Gonzalez’ s remaining arguments and find them to be without
m eri t. Fo r th e f

ore go ingrea so ns , th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk