Today’s Second Circuit summary order in United States v. Foskey, No. 21-149-cr, brings to mind a Caddyshack line that I think of often (quoted above). In Foskey, the Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of a motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Before the Circuit, the defendant argued that the district court had abused its discretion in denying his motion, failing to follow United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020), and failing to sufficiently explain its denial of release. Before the district court, the government had argued that Brooker was wrongly decided and that the district court should not follow it. The district court denied the defendant’s release motion in docket entry orders that did not make clear what legal standard it applied or whether it followed Brooker.
But, per the Circuit, “the district court made no mention of Brooker,” so “nothing in [the court’s] order suggests that it was disregarding” that decision. Sure! Further, in its brief docket entries, the district court made clear that the defendant’s “COVID-19 concerns were outweighed by his history of violence and lack of compliance with pretrial supervision.” Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Happy New Year!