Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America., Appellee, v. Jason PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.


Decided: March 08, 2019

PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges, Richard M. Berman, District Judge.* FOR APPELLEE: Matthew Laroche and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Anthony Cecutti, New York, NY.


Defendant Jason Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). Patterson was sentenced to a term of 46 months’ incarceration, to be followed by three years’ supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

On appeal, Patterson argues that the District Court erred in calculating the applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range because it improperly counted two previous convictions for third-degree robbery in violation of New York Penal Law Section 160.05 as “crimes of violence.” At the time the case was submitted, the appeal presented an open question: whether the New York offense of robbery in the third degree constitutes a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Today, this question is no longer open. Our recent decision, United States v. Moore, 916 F.3d 231, 239 (2d Cir. 2019) forecloses Patterson’s arguments. As we held there, “New York robbery in the third degree is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1).” Id. The District Court therefore correctly counted both of Patterson’s prior convictions as crimes of violence, and thus properly calculated his Guidelines sentence.


We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Patterson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the June 24, 2016 judgment of the District Court.

Copied to clipboard