Court Opinion

ID: 9378448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 16:00:24.285607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.291306
License: Public Domain

21-2667-cr
United States v. Tisdol
                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                         SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order
filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an
electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order
must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

       At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-three.

PRESENT:             JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
                     REENA RAGGI,
                     JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
                                   Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Appellee,                         21-2667-cr

                             v.
WILLIAM TISDOL,

                             Defendant-Appellant.

FOR APPELLEE:                                              MARGARET M. DONOVAN, (Conor M.
                                                           Reardon, on the brief), Assistant United
                                                           States Attorneys, for Vanessa Roberts
                                                           Avery, United States Attorney for the
                                                           District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                                   WILLIAM T. KOCH III, Koch, Garg &
                                                           Brown, LLP, Niantic, CT.

          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

(Janet Bond Arterton, Judge).

                                                     1
        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the October 14, 2021 judgment of the District Court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.

         Defendant-Appellant William Tisdol appeals from a judgment of conviction, arguing for a
remand because he believes that the District Court erred by not specifying whether his federal
sentence—principally 18 months’ imprisonment—should have run concurrently or consecutively
with an anticipated state criminal sentence. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

        Under Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012), a federal district court sentencing a
defendant facing an anticipated state sentence has “the power to impose anticipatory consecutive (or
concurrent) sentences,” but also has the discretion to forbear from rendering such a decision, id. at
242 n.6. Setser explains that “[i]n some situations, a district court may have inadequate information
and may forbear, but in other situations, that will not be the case.” Id.

        Tisdol asks us to “hold that it was error for the District Court in this case to decline to
exercise its discretion.” Def. Br. 7. But the District Court exercised its discretion by declining to rule
on whether the federal sentence would run consecutive or concurrent with the possible future state
sentence. As the Government correctly notes, “there was significant uncertainty about the likely
disposition of the state cases.” Gov’t. Br. 11; see Gov’t. App’x 12; PSR ¶¶ 31–33; App’x 14. On this
record, the District Court was well within its discretion to forbear in ruling on how the federal
sentence should relate to a not-yet-imposed state sentence.

        We note the letter of February 17, 2023, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to the District
Court, in which the Government recorded its position that—in light of the state court’s order—the
sentence at issue in this appeal and the state sentence should run concurrently. We are confident
that the District Court will give the letter its careful and prompt attention.

                                           CONCLUSION

       We have reviewed the remaining arguments raised by Tisdol on appeal and find them to be
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

                                                    2