United States v. Kabel

Second Circuit

United States v. Kabel

293 F. App'x 83

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 19, 2008

DocketNo. 07-4152-cr.

StatusPublished

This text of 293 F. App'x 83 (United States v. Kabel) 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. Kabel, 293 F. App'x 83 (2d Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Sarah Kabel appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Arcara, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.

Appellant argues that the district court’s imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence of eighteen months was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We disagree. The District Court correctly noted during the sentencing that, under U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005), it must consider the Guidelines, but is not bound by them. The District Court also recognized that he was obligated to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Appellant failed to document that her sentence proceeding was in any way procedurally flawed, nor has she demonstrated that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (“[W]e presume, in the absence of record evidence suggesting otherwise, that a sentencing judge has faithfully discharged her duty to consider the statutory factors.”).

For the foregoing reason, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Sarah Kabel appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Arcara, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.

Appellant argues that the district court’s imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence of eighteen months was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We disagree. The District Court correctly noted during the sentencing that, under U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005), it must consider the Guidelines, but is not bound by them. The District Court also recognized that he was obligated to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Appellant failed to document that her sentence proceeding was in any way procedurally flawed, nor has she demonstrated that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (“[W]e presume, in the absence of record evidence suggesting otherwise, that a sentencing judge has faithfully discharged her duty to consider the statutory factors.”).

For the foregoing reason, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 F. App'x 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kabel-ca2-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack