Public Defense

This decision found great fault with a sentencing that ?left much to be desired.? The district court ?failed to (1) rule on the numerous filed objections to the PSR; (2) rule on the requests for downward departures and a variance; (3) adopt the findings of the PSR; (4) mention, much less articulate its consideration of, the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); or (5) calculate an applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines.?

Nevertheless, the sentence was within the range specified in the plea agreement?s waiver clause, and the waiver was otherwise valid. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal. But it did note that,= the waiver did not ?relieve the District Court of its responsibility to follow the procedural requirements related to the imposition of sentence,? even if it ?preclude[d] this Court from correcting the errors alleged to have occurred below.? That said, there is a point at which ?an arbitrary practice of sentencing without [proffered] reasons would amount of an abdication of judicial responsibility subject to mandamus? and an appeal waiver would not be enforced.

This case, while bad, did not ?present such an extraordinary circumstance,? since the record as a whole indicates that the court at least gave ?due consideration to? the defendant?s sentencing arguments.

Full post as published by Second Circuit Blog on March 20, 2011 (boomark / email).