United States v. Baxter

Second Circuit

United States v. Baxter

562 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2014

Docket13-1961

StatusUnpublished

This text of 562 F. App'x 9 (United States v. Baxter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Baxter, 562 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Robert Baxter appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.), convicting him of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Baxter challenges the refusal to grant a downward adjustment of the sentence based on his time spent in state custody for a parole violation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review a [district court’s] sentence for reasonableness, which is ‘akin to review for abuse of discretion, under which we consider whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.’ ” United States v. Leslie, 658 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir.2011) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 474 (2d Cir.2007)). “ ‘[A] refusal to downwardly depart is generally not appealable,’ and ... review of such a denial will be available only “when a sentencing court misapprehended the scope of its authority to depart or the sentence was otherwise illegal.’ ” United States v. Stinson, 465 F.3d 113, 114 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Valdez, 426 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2005)). Contrary to Baxter’s contention, the district court appropriately considered the application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. The record does not reflect that the district court felt bound to reject Bax *11 ter’s request for a downward adjustment; rather, the court stated that the Guidelines do not compel that the request be granted. Moreover, any expectation Baxter had of obtaining a adjustment was misplaced; no guarantees were made by the court or the prosecution regarding the applicability of § 5G1.8.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Baxter’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Robert Baxter appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.), convicting him of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Baxter challenges the refusal to grant a downward adjustment of the sentence based on his time spent in state custody for a parole violation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“We review a [district court’s] sentence for reasonableness, which is ‘akin to review for abuse of discretion, under which we consider whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.’ ” United States v. Leslie, 658 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir.2011) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 474 (2d Cir.2007)). “ ‘[A] refusal to downwardly depart is generally not appealable,’ and ... review of such a denial will be available only “when a sentencing court misapprehended the scope of its authority to depart or the sentence was otherwise illegal.’ ” United States v. Stinson, 465 F.3d 113, 114 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Valdez, 426 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2005)). Contrary to Baxter’s contention, the district court appropriately considered the application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. The record does not reflect that the district court felt bound to reject Bax *11 ter’s request for a downward adjustment; rather, the court stated that the Guidelines do not compel that the request be granted. Moreover, any expectation Baxter had of obtaining a adjustment was misplaced; no guarantees were made by the court or the prosecution regarding the applicability of § 5G1.8.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Baxter’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-baxter-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack