Opinion ID: 2829977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness of Konetsco’s Sentence

Text: Finally, Konetsco also has no viable challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the District Court. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a), if the District Court finds a violation of probation, the District Court has the authority to resentence the defendant. In evaluating an appeal of a sentence imposed following revocation, we review the District Court’s decision for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Young, 634 F.3d 233, 237 (3d Cir. 2011). “‘Procedurally, the [District Court] must give rational and meaningful consideration to the relevant [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766, 769 (3d Cir. 2010)). Substantively, we look to “‘whether the final sentence, wherever it may lie within the permissible statutory range, was premised upon appropriate and judicious consideration 4 Although Konetsco maintains his innocence and is appealing that conviction in state court, the pending appeal has no effect on the District Court’s finding of a violation. “A criminal conviction after a trial . . . affords a more than sufficient basis for revocation of probation, even if that conviction is still awaiting appellate review.” Roberson v. Connecticut, 501 F.2d 305, 308 (2d Cir. 1974). 6 of the relevant factors.’” Id. (quoting Doe, 617 F.3d at 770). The District Court correctly calculated Konetsco’s Guidelines range and applied the § 3553(a) factors. As noted above, Konetsco’s drug felony conviction constitutes a Grade A violation, and with his Criminal History Category of III, the advisory Guidelines range for his violation is 18-24 months’ imprisonment. Konetsco’s counsel conceded at the revocation proceeding that this was the correct Guidelines range and did not object to the presentence investigation report5 or dispositional report prepared by the probation officer in advance of the revocation proceeding. The District Court also expressly “considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. [§] 3553” in imposing the Guidelines sentence. App. 35. Specifically, the District Court noted that Konetsco’s compliance with supervision had been “poor” and concluded that Konetsco had “no intention to follow the conditions of his supervision” in light of “several positive drug screens” and the new felony drug conviction. Id. Thus, the District Court’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The District Court’s sentence of eighteen months for a Grade A probation 5 Konetsco argues in his pro se submission that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, the District Court had a “mandatory duty . . . to have an updated presentence report prepared prior to sentencing,” and claims that the District Court improperly relied on the presentence report that was prepared for the sentencing for his underlying offense in 2012. Pro Se Br. at 1-2. Rule 32, however, does not mandate the preparation of a new presentence report for probation revocation proceedings, which are governed by Rule 32.1. See United States v. Urrutia-Contreras, 782 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that because revocation proceedings are governed by Rule 32.1 rather than Rule 32, “revocation proceedings do not include extensive presentence investigation reports”). 7 violation is also substantively reasonable. The correct procedure was employed and a reasonable conclusion reached given the evidence presented. See Young, 634 F.3d at 237 (“‘Absent procedural error, we will affirm the sentencing court unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.’” (quoting Doe, 617 F.3d at 770)). While the District Court did not expressly consider Konetsco’s request for a downward variance based on his medical conditions, it expressed concern regarding Konetsco’s ability to access his necessary medications, sentenced Konetsco to the lowest Guidelines sentence available, and included in the order a recommendation that the Bureau of Prisons place Konetsco “at an institution that can provide the defendant with the medical attention he needs.” App. 4. Konetsco cannot meet his burden of showing that a reasonable sentencing court would not have imposed the same sentence. Thus, any challenge to the sentencing procedure would be frivolous.