Opinion ID: 797991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Gotti's sentence

Text: 23 Gotti contends that his sentence was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in paragraph 2 of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and therefore illegal. He argues that the district court should have weighed more heavily his age, health, and undischarged sentence remaining from a prior conviction for shipping industry extortion. 24 A sentencing determination is reviewed for reasonableness. The reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing judge, but rather considers whether the sentencing judge `exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion[,] . . . committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.' United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 114 (2d Cir.2005) (alterations in original)). 25 The district court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range after noting that [t]he facts relevant under Section 3553(a) strongly support a lengthy sentence. The court considered Gotti's age and health, noting that defendant's contention that he is no longer a threat to society because of his age and medical conditions is belied by the trial testimony establishing that he, like the other leaders of the Gambino family, need only to direct subordinates to commit the criminal acts from which he profited. As for Gotti's undischarged sentence, the district court ruled that Section 3553(a), especially the goals of punishment and deterrence, favor a lengthy sentence. . . . The defendant's conduct as part of the shipping industry extortion was distinct from his construction industry activities and the plan to murder Gravano. We find nothing unreasonable in the sentence.