Opinion ID: 2739896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Todd

Text: Todd challenges his sentence as procedurally unreasonable, arguing that the District Court erred in finding by a preponderance of the evidence following a Fatico hearing, see generally United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979), that Todd had assaulted another inmate while incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”), and in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence based on that finding. We review a district court’s finding of facts relevant to sentencing for clear error, see United States v. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 2005), which is found when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Cuevas, 496 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). We defer to factual findings of the district court that are “based on the testimony and observation of witnesses . . . since assessing the credibility of witnesses is distinctly the province of the district court.” Id. at 267 (internal quotations 3 omitted). So long as “there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Chalarca, 95 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). The District Court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Another inmate, who was housed in the same unit as Todd at the MCC, testified that Todd had made a series of threatening comments to him during the period leading up to the assault. The inmate testified that, after a heated argument in the bathroom of the unit, he returned to his bed, and that Todd at some time thereafter snuck up on him and stabbed him several times. Todd argues that the inmate had a powerful motive to fabricate his account in order to avoid losing cooperation credit from the government in another case, and that his testimony was inconsistent or otherwise implausible. But the District Court, having heard the witness’s testimony, was entitled to accord it whatever weight it saw fit, taking any inconsistencies and any motive the witness may have had to lie into account in assessing his credibility. The District Court credited the inmate’s testimony, which it was permitted to do. See United States v. McLean, 287 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2002) (that testimony was uncorroborated and witness was “an admitted drug dealer eager to please the Government” bore on credibility, which was for the district court to determine). Todd also contends that the testimony of the two other witnesses at the Fatico hearing did not support the District Court’s finding. John Banks, a Discipline Hearing Officer at the Bureau of Prisons, testified that, after investigating the incident, he 4 concluded that the incident should be expunged from Todd’s record and that Todd should not be disciplined in any way as a result of it. Luis Rodriguez, an investigative technician at the MCC, testified that a weapon was recovered in Todd’s unit the day after the incident, but was unable to say where exactly the weapon had been discovered within the 156-inmate unit and admitted to having performed no “testing” on the weapon. The District Court, however, considered that testimony in the context of the entire Fatico hearing and concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Todd had committed the assault. In the absence of clear error, it is not for us to second-guess the District Court’s weighing of the evidence. See Chalarca, 95 F.3d at 244. Accordingly, because we find no clear error in the District Court’s findings of fact, we affirm the judgment of conviction as to defendant Todd.