United States v. Daniels

Second Circuit

United States v. Daniels

516 F. App'x 56

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2013

Docket12-1925-cr

StatusUnpublished

This text of 516 F. App'x 56 (United States v. Daniels) 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. Daniels, 516 F. App'x 56 (2d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Rasheed Daniels, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 28 grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of cocaine, was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) to 262 months’ imprisonment. He appeals the sentence, primarily challenging his categorization as a career offender. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Daniels argues that his 1994 youthful offender adjudication in New York, for the sale of crack cocaine, should not be counted as an adult felony to support his classification as a career offender (resulting in a higher Guidelines range of 262 to 827 months). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2005).

To the extent that Daniels argues that the district court should have departed from the career offender Guidelines range, we review the district court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. But “[a] district court’s refusal to depart downward is generally unreviewable on appeal, unless its action falls within a few narrow exceptions to the general rule,” for example, if the court mistakenly believes it does not have authority to make a departure. United States v. Duverge Perez, 295 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted). The district court considered Daniels’s arguments for a downward departure, but found that Daniels’s extensive criminal history justified the enhancement. Daniels presents no evidence that the district court abused its discretion in declin *57 ing to depart downward, or that the court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to do so.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Daniels’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

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Rasheed Daniels, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 28 grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of cocaine, was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) to 262 months’ imprisonment. He appeals the sentence, primarily challenging his categorization as a career offender. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Daniels argues that his 1994 youthful offender adjudication in New York, for the sale of crack cocaine, should not be counted as an adult felony to support his classification as a career offender (resulting in a higher Guidelines range of 262 to 827 months). This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2005).

To the extent that Daniels argues that the district court should have departed from the career offender Guidelines range, we review the district court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. But “[a] district court’s refusal to depart downward is generally unreviewable on appeal, unless its action falls within a few narrow exceptions to the general rule,” for example, if the court mistakenly believes it does not have authority to make a departure. United States v. Duverge Perez, 295 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted). The district court considered Daniels’s arguments for a downward departure, but found that Daniels’s extensive criminal history justified the enhancement. Daniels presents no evidence that the district court abused its discretion in declin *57 ing to depart downward, or that the court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to do so.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. App'x 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniels-ca2-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack