Opinion ID: 152980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Of the Frivolous Standard as Applied to Bonilla's Claims on Appeal

Text: In opposing this motion for summary affirmance, Bonilla clarifies in his memorandum of law the arguments he urges upon us: To be clear, Bonilla does not argue that the district court failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence or that it failed to indicate that it considered his arguments. Indeed, in articulating the sentence, the District Court reviewed at some length Bonilla's prior criminal record, indicating its concern for Bonilla's recidivism as the basis for imposing a Guidelines sentence, albeit at the low end of the Guidelines range: I'm going to put him at the low end of the Guideline in spite of his conduct. The District Court fully complied with the statutory requirement to state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). As to consideration of Bonilla's arguments, the District Court could not have been more clear: I have reviewed and considered all the pertinent information, including but not limited to the Presentence Investigation Report, the addendum, submissions by counsel, I've considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the Sentencing Guidelines. Bonilla apparently contends that the District Court failed to respond specifically in some way to his argument regarding his policy disagreement with the 16-level enhancement. In the first place, it might be said that the District Court made such a specific response in its statement of reasons: So in light of all that, I feel that the people [who] drafted these Sentencing statutes had in mind a person such as this defendant. The people [who] drafted these Sentencing statutes may be read to include the people who drafted the Sentencing Guidelines. In any event, we never have required a District Court to make specific responses to points argued by counsel in connection with sentencing, and counsel for Bonilla has cited no authority to us in that regard. The District Court here considered all arguments of counsel and fully stated the reasons for the sentence imposed, and that was all that was required. We have time and time again made it clear that we do not insist that the district court address every argument the defendant has made. . . . E.g., Villafuerte, 502 F.3d at 210. Although Bonilla contends that we ha[ve] not yet addressed the precise contours of a district court's requirement to adequately respond to a defendant's non-frivolous arguments at sentencing, this is not so. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, we have held that the District Court must satisfy us only that it has considered the party's arguments and has articulated a reasonable basis for exercising its decision-making authority. See Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193. No further or more precise contours ever have been required. Finally, we note that the plain-error rule also serves as a basis for rejecting Bonilla's argument on this issue. Counsel for Bonilla did not ask the District Court for a specific response to its 16-level enhancement argument. Nor did counsel object to the sentence on the basis that the District Court did not respond to the claim that the enhancement was made without the benefit of empirical study. To the extent a defendant appeals his sentence on grounds not raised in the District Court, we review for plain error. United States v. Gamez, 577 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam). Plain error has been defined as (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). Upon review, we find no error, much less no plain error, here. In light of all the foregoing, we conclude that Bonilla's argument with respect to the 16-level enhancement is totally unsupported by relevant law and therefore must be classified as frivolous.