UNITED STATES v. FAKHRETDINOV (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Radik Fakhretdinov appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on July 28, 2016 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Woods, J.) sentencing him to twelve months and one day imprisonment. On January 24, 2018, this Court remanded Fakhretdinov's appeal to the district court pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994), so that the district court could determine whether it “would have sentenced Appellant to a lesser term of imprisonment if defense counsel had properly informed [the district court] of the immigration consequences of a term of imprisonment of a year or more.” Supp. App. 12. This Court's Order also provided that, if either party wished to appeal the district court's determination, “either party may restore the matter to the active docket of this Court by letter without filing a further notice of appeal.” Supp. App. 13. On April 6, 2018, the district court declined to impose a shorter term of imprisonment. Supp. App. 52-53. Thereafter, Fakhretdinov restored his appeal.

Fakhretdinov argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it does not comport with the “parsimony clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which requires that a sentence be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” We have held that “to hold that a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is invalid under the parsimony clause” will require a clear showing that the district court could have imposed a lower sentence that would have been equally effective. United States v. Ministro-Tapia, 470 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). Fakhretdinov contends that, despite being below the guidelines range of 15 to 21 months imprisonment, his sentence violated the parsimony clause and was thus procedurally unreasonable because the district court “did not articulate a sufficient reason for choosing a sentence one day above the [mandatory removal] line rather than one day below it.” Appellant's Supp. Br. 19.

Fakhretdinov's sentence is not procedurally unreasonable. In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). At Fakhretdinov's initial sentencing hearing held on July 27, 2016, the district court expressly applied the parsimony clause, noting that the imposed sentence was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.” App. 89. At the supplemental sentencing hearing, the district court reiterated the evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors and found that more complete arguments with respect to the immigration consequences of such a sentence would not have led the court to impose a shorter term of imprisonment in order to spare Fakhretdinov from removal. In fact, the district court noted that had the consequences of the imposed term of imprisonment not included “immediate[ ] deport[ation]” the district court “might have imposed a longer sentence.” Supp App. 43. Thus, the district court found that a lower sentence would not have been equally effective.

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.