Federal Judiciary

United States v. Miloro, No. 02-1276-cr (2d Cir. March 12, 2009) (found here)

Miloro was found to have violated his supervised release, and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to run consecutive to the state sentence imposed for the crimes that constituted his violation.  He appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider the need for the sentence imposed to "protect the public from further crimes against the defendant." 

Sure, seems like an argument that's unlikely to prevail.  But here's the rub: Miloro will be 96 years old when he finishes his state sentence.  So, in essence, he argued that the district court failed to consider whether additional incarceration is necessary to protect the public from what will be a 96 year old man upon release from his state sentence (if he even makes it that far).  As the Second Circuit described it, "[b]ecause Miloro will be 96 years old by the time he has served his state sentence in full, he argues that public safety concerns could not plausibly necessitate that he be imprisoned for an additional 18 months."

The Second Circuit disagreed.  Relying on United States v. Fernandez, it concluded that the district court had properly considered the public safety factor even though it had not explicitly considered it.  Thus, the setnence was procedurally reasonable.  (As an aside, it also found the sentence substantively reasonable.)