U.S. v. GRIFFIN

No. 16-2630.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. GREGORY GRIFFIN, AKA Meeshack, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Melissa A. Tuohey , for Lisa A. Peebles , Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York, for Appellant.

Steven D. Clymer , for Richard S. Hartunian , United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GEORGE B. DANIELS,


SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

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

Gregory Griffin appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.) imposing, in relevant part, a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment after his plea to violations of his conditions of supervised release. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. We affirm because the district court's within-Guidelines sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

Griffin argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for its sentence. He did not preserve this procedural objection, and so we review it for plain error. United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2015), as amended (July 22, 2015). Further, when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence for violation of supervised release, a district court's compliance with the sentencing explanation requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) "can be minimal." United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 25, 2012). While the district court's explanation was indeed minimal, Griffin failed to show (as he was required to do) that any lack of explanation "prejudicially affected his substantial rights," United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477, 481 (2d Cir. 2013).

As to Griffin's substantive challenge to his 27-month sentence, the within-Guidelines sentence was not "so shockingly high . . . or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law that allowing [it] to stand would damage the administration of justice." Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). It was therefore substantively reasonable.

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

FootNotes


** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the caption above.
* Judge George B. Daniels, United States Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases