Opinion ID: 899617
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Alleged Procedural Errors

Text: Malki raises three additional arguments challenging the procedural reasonableness of the district court's sentence, none of which has merit. First, he contends that the district court made clearly erroneous findings that he had deliberately gathered four classified -13- documents. 1 The record amply supported the district court's finding of deliberate gathering and its conclusion that Malki was an acknowledged liar who had been untruthful in his testimony before the court. See United States v. Iodice, 525 F.3d 179, 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (we accord particularly strong deference to district court findings based on credibility determinations). Thus, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, United States v. Murphy, 703 F.3d 182, 188 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and conclude that Malki has identified no clear procedural error. Second, Malki argues that the district court did not adequately explain its sentence. The district court, however, made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, which addressed Malki's motives for committing the offense, and his deliberate removal of the 1 Although Judge Korman made a finding on this point, which Malki did not appeal, we do not consider this issue foreclosed by the limited mandate. New evidence that allegedly undercut Malki's motive to engage in deliberate gathering of classified information had been produced by the government during the intervening sentencing dates. See United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000). -14- classified documents -- an aggravating factor at sentencing. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Furthermore, the court repeatedly emphasized that this was a wartime offense and that allegedly comparable cases offered by the defense had not occurred in a war zone, with soldiers' lives at stake. Resentencing Tr. 92:13-14. The district court then reiterated these points in its statement of reasons justifying the above-Guidelines sentence. We conclude that these explanations sufficiently explained the district court's sentence in a manner that would allow for meaningful appellate review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Third, to the extent that Malki argues that the district court did not explain its deviation from Judge Korman's sentence, we conclude that no particular explanation was necessary. In the past, we have required that a second judge resentencing a defendant on largely identical facts explain any variation from a prior, vacated, sentence imposed by a different judge. See United States v. Johnson, 273 F. App'x 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). There, however, the district court imposed a significantly longer sentence on remand with -15- hardly any justification at all. Id. By contrast, in absolute terms, the 108-month sentence imposed by the district court here was less than the 121-month sentence imposed by Judge Korman. Thus, notwithstanding the new evidence introduced by Malki, after giving due deference to the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the institutional advantages of district courts, Cavera, 550 F.3d at 190, we conclude that the district court's explanation was sufficient.