United States v. Rodriguez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 15, 2015

619 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2015)

Opinion

14-1143

10-15-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

FOR APPELLANT: Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, New York. FOR APPELLEE: Alina P. Reynolds, Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15^th day of October, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

FOR APPELLANT:

Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, New York.

FOR APPELLEE:

Alina P. Reynolds, Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.).

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

Defendant-appellant Eddie Rodriguez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.), sentencing him principally to 77 months of imprisonment, after his guilty plea to conspiracy (1) to possess with intent to distribute and (2) to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Rodriguez argues that his 77-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The precise sentence chosen by the district court, if within lawful bounds, is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). That highly deferential standard "provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law." United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009).

Given Rodriguez's extensive criminal history, his trial counsel's request for a 77-month sentence, the district court's careful consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, and the 60-month mandatory minimum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of 77 months.

***

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

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK