UNITED STATES v. HUNT (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Michael Hunt, who was convicted in 2007 following his guilty plea to multiple counts of drug trafficking and sentenced to 60 months’ incarceration and four years’ supervised release, now appeals the judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to an additional 30 months’ imprisonment. Hunt contends that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court (1) placed undue weight on the criminal conduct underlying his violation, (2) failed to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence, and (3) did not properly consider mitigating circumstances. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

Standard of Review

“Sentences for violations of supervised release are reviewed under the same standard as for sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.” United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Reasonableness is reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, a defendant does not raise “procedural objections to the district court at the time of sentencing, we review his claims for plain error.” United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 2008).

Discussion

Hunt argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We disagree.

“A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sentence.” Smith, 949 F.3d at 66 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the district court must explain its reasons for the sentence, “we do not require district courts to engage in the utterance of robotic incantations when imposing sentences in order to assure us that they have weighed in an appropriate manner the various section 3553(a) factors.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court described at length its reasons for going above the advisory Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. After stating that it had considered the relevant statutory factors, the court observed that it was “taking account of the serious breach of trust” reflected by Hunt's latest violation of supervision, a 2016 assault in which he slashed a victim's neck with a knife at the Port Authority bus terminal. App'x at 118. The court also noted Hunt's numerous “prior breach[es] of trust” from previous violations of supervised release that included two separate robberies. Id. at 119. At first, the district court had modified Hunt's supervision to add 100 hours of community service, which Hunt failed to perform. And after Hunt admitted to committing two robberies, the court revoked Hunt's term of supervision and sentenced him to 16 months’ imprisonment followed by three years supervision. Although the court carefully considered the possibility that Hunt may suffer from mental illness – a suggestion raised by defense counsel without evidence of a diagnosis – the court was nevertheless troubled that Hunt “has not in any way paid heed to” the terms of supervised release. Id.

Importantly, the record belies any suggestion that the district court placed undue weight on the particulars of the criminal conduct that formed the basis for the violation; indeed, the court expressly disclaimed considering the criminal conduct beyond the breach of trust that it reflected, explaining that “the consequences [for it] are separately punished as a state law crime.” Id. at 120. On this record, therefore, we identify no procedural error – much less plain error.

As to substantive reasonableness, we “will set aside a district court's substantive determination only in exceptional cases where the trial court's decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 74, 82 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Again, we find no reversible error on this record. As the district court noted, Hunt has repeatedly violated his terms of supervised release, and the court's previous interventions – assigning Hunt community service and later sentencing him to a 16-month prison term – had no effect. Given these repeated breaches of trust, Hunt's 30-month sentence is neither “shockingly high,” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009), nor otherwise substantively unreasonable.

Conclusion

We have considered Hunt's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.