UNITED STATES v. FERNANDEZ ROSA (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Hector Emilio Fernandez-Rosa appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on August 2, 2019, following his guilty plea to one charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced principally to a term of life in prison. On direct appeal, Fernandez-Rosa challenges the sentencing proceedings before the district court, including the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We assume the reader's familiarity with the case.

In reviewing Fernandez-Rosa's sentencing challenges, “we apply ‘a particularly deferential form of abuse-of-discretion review,’ and will not vacate a sentence unless it is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Clarke, 979 F.3d 82, 99 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 188 n.5 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc)). A district court commits “procedural error” if it improperly calculates the Sentencing Guidelines range, fails to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), bases its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. (citing Cavera, 550 F.3d at 190). A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it is “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” United States v. Douglas, 713 F.3d 694, 700 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009)); see also Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 (explaining that a sentence is substantively unreasonable when it “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions” (quoting Rigas, 490 F.3d at 238)).

Applying these standards, we have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that Fernandez-Rosa's sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. We further find no merit in Fernandez-Rosa's claim of misconduct, bad faith or otherwise, on the part of the Government at sentencing. We have considered Fernandez-Rosa's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.