UNITED STATES v. FINCH (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Jovan Finch appeals from the February 12, 2018 judgment sentencing him to eighteen months’ imprisonment following Finch’s admission that he violated the terms of his supervised release by using a controlled substance. The Government agrees that the sentence was procedurally defective and so should be vacated and remanded. We agree as well.

First, a “district court commits procedural error where it fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range.” United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 38 (2d Cir. 2012).¹ The record here does not indicate that the district court calculated or considered the appropriate Guidelines range, as it was not mentioned at the sentencing hearing or in the ultimate judgment.

Second, “[w]hen a district judge deviates from an advisory Guidelines range, it must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance․ A major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 2015), as amended (July 22, 2015). Finch pled to a Grade C violation, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3), and had a criminal history category of II, making the Guidelines range four to ten months’ imprisonment, id. § 7B1.4(a). The district court thus imposed a sentence that was almost double the high end of the Guidelines range. It did so without explanation, either at the sentencing hearing or in writing when it entered judgment. We thus cannot conclude that the district court had “a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc).

We accordingly vacate the sentence imposed by the District Court and remand for resentencing. We need not address Finch’s argument that his sentence was also substantively unreasonable.

For the reasons stated herein, we VACATE the sentence imposed and REMAND the case to the district court for resentencing. Given the parties’ agreement on this outcome, the mandate shall issue forthwith.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, case quotations omit all internal quotation marks, alterations, footnotes, and citations.