United States v. Chervin, No. 13-631-cr (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2014) (Kearse, Pooler, and Raggi) (summary order), available here
This summary is provided by noted criminal defense attorney Francisco Celedonio, Esq., who is also a member of the Board of Directors of Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:
Appellant Chervin challenged his 57-month sentence, which was imposed after trial (for
conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud). He asserted that the sentence was unreasonable because it was disproportionate to
the sentences imposed on others involved in the same scheme. Finding that
Chervin had failed to demonstrate that he was similarly situated to his co-defendants
(for example, Chervin was the only defendant to go to trial, he never accepted responsibility, and his co-defendants were convicted of
different crimes), the Circuit refused to find any procedural or substantive
error in the sentence imposed. Notably, the Court reiterated the rule stated
in United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008), that although
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires a district court to consider national sentencing
disparities, it “does not require a district court to consider disparities
between co-defendants.” Finally, noting that Chervin was sentenced at the low
end of the advisory Guidelines, the Circuit could find nothing to suggest that the
sentence was shockingly high or otherwise improper.
conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud). He asserted that the sentence was unreasonable because it was disproportionate to
the sentences imposed on others involved in the same scheme. Finding that
Chervin had failed to demonstrate that he was similarly situated to his co-defendants
(for example, Chervin was the only defendant to go to trial, he never accepted responsibility, and his co-defendants were convicted of
different crimes), the Circuit refused to find any procedural or substantive
error in the sentence imposed. Notably, the Court reiterated the rule stated
in United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008), that although
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires a district court to consider national sentencing
disparities, it “does not require a district court to consider disparities
between co-defendants.” Finally, noting that Chervin was sentenced at the low
end of the advisory Guidelines, the Circuit could find nothing to suggest that the
sentence was shockingly high or otherwise improper.
Comments are closed.