United States v. Francis

Second Circuit

United States v. Francis

53 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

DocketDocket No. 02-1254

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. App'x 160 (United States v. Francis) 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. Francis, 53 F. App'x 160 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Sean Francis appeals from a final judgment of the District Court (Colleen McMahon, Judge) sentencing him to a term of two years’ imprisonment for a “Grade C” violation of supervised release. Francis asserts that the District Court violated the individualized sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and § 3583(e)(3), and failed to consider the (advisory) guidelines set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, when it stated that its sentence was based not only on the threat defendant posed to society, but also on its general philosophy of always imposing the maximum allowable sentence for supervised release violations. However, because the Court also made all of the relevant policy considerations and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum, we affirm the District Court’s sentence. See United States v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278, 283-84 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where: “(1) the district court considered the applicable policy statements; (2) the sentence is within the statutory maximum; and (3) the sentence is reasonable”).

We have reviewed all of the defendant’s arguments. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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 said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Sean Francis appeals from a final judgment of the District Court (Colleen McMahon, Judge) sentencing him to a term of two years’ imprisonment for a “Grade C” violation of supervised release. Francis asserts that the District Court violated the individualized sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and § 3583(e)(3), and failed to consider the (advisory) guidelines set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, when it stated that its sentence was based not only on the threat defendant posed to society, but also on its general philosophy of always imposing the maximum allowable sentence for supervised release violations. However, because the Court also made all of the relevant policy considerations and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum, we affirm the District Court’s sentence. See United States v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278, 283-84 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where: “(1) the district court considered the applicable policy statements; (2) the sentence is within the statutory maximum; and (3) the sentence is reasonable”).

We have reviewed all of the defendant’s arguments. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-francis-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack