Summary Summary

It’s been a while, but here is the latest set of summary orders of interest.

In United States v. Romeo, No. 09-3106-cr (2d Cir. July 19, 2010), the court found plain error in the sentencing court’s fact-finding as to the number of victims, and ordered a Jacobson remand.

In United States v. Timewell, No. 09-2777-cr (2d Cir. July 15, 2010), the court found error in a post-Crosby remand sentence. The district court ruled in the case before the mandate issued, thus it lacked jurisdiction. It also erred in ruling before giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, and misapprehended the terms of the mandate.

In United Sates v. Most, No. 09-6292-cr (2d Cir. June 8, 2010), the court upheld the imposition of the statutory maximum sentence for a supervised release violation. The district court’s reasons – the defendant’s criminal history, repeated violations of supervision and the fact that he received a significant downward departure in the underlying case – supported the sentence.

In United States v. Cotto-Lopez, No. 08-5337-cr (2d Cir. June 1, 2010), the court remanded for resentencing because the district court “made no explicit finding that Cotto-Lopez was or was not a minor or minimal participant,” despite his “substantial argument for such a finding,” thus frustrating the appellate court’s ability to review the sentence.The court’s adoption of the PSR was not enough, because the PSR’s finding as to the defendant’s role was a “bare conclusion without analysis or explanation.”