United States v. Sirois

Second Circuit

United States v. Sirois

103 F. App'x 685

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 2004

DocketNo. 03-1477

StatusPublished

This text of 103 F. App'x 685 (United States v. Sirois) 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. Sirois, 103 F. App'x 685 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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

Defendant-Appellant Robert Sirois appeals the judgment of the district court (Burns, J.) sentencing Sirois to 12 months’ imprisonment and 18 months’ supervised release. Sirois contends that this sentence, which exceeds the recommended range provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing Guidelines”), is plainly unreasonable and should be invalidated.

Defendant was sentenced by the district court as a second-time offender for violating the terms of his supervised release, by associating with a convicted felon. Although the Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentencing range of 5 — 11 months’ imprisonment, the district court, considering all the relevant factors, imposed a 12-month sentence, which is within the statutory maximum. It is well-established that a sentence exceeding the guidelines range is permitted as long as it is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Wirth, 250 F.3d 165, 169 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam); United States v. Sweeney, 90 F.3d 55, 57 (2d Cir.1996). Under all the circumstances of this case, this sentence is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 69-71 (2d Cir.1997).

We have considered all of Defendant’s claims and find them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is therefore 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 the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Robert Sirois appeals the judgment of the district court (Burns, J.) sentencing Sirois to 12 months’ imprisonment and 18 months’ supervised release. Sirois contends that this sentence, which exceeds the recommended range provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing Guidelines”), is plainly unreasonable and should be invalidated.

Defendant was sentenced by the district court as a second-time offender for violating the terms of his supervised release, by associating with a convicted felon. Although the Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentencing range of 5 — 11 months’ imprisonment, the district court, considering all the relevant factors, imposed a 12-month sentence, which is within the statutory maximum. It is well-established that a sentence exceeding the guidelines range is permitted as long as it is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Wirth, 250 F.3d 165, 169 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam); United States v. Sweeney, 90 F.3d 55, 57 (2d Cir.1996). Under all the circumstances of this case, this sentence is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 69-71 (2d Cir.1997).

We have considered all of Defendant’s claims and find them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sirois-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack