United States v. Ford, (2nd Cir. 2007)
Linked as:
Text
05-6668-cr
U n i t e d States v. Ford
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R U L I N G S BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED
A F T E R JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND
F E D E R A L RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT
C I T E S A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION
M U S T EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)."
U N L E S S THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
W I T H O U T PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE
P A R T Y CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER
W I T H THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE
A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT
D A T A B A S E AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 9th
day of May, two thousand seven.
PRESENT:
HON. JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
HON. ROBERT D. SACK,
Circuit Judges,
HON. DONALD C. POGUE,*
Judge.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
-v- No. 05-6668-cr
KAREEM A. FORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appearing for Appellant: David A. Katz, Katz & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA Appearing for Appellee: Amy Busa, Assistant United States Attorney (United States Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf, and Assistant United States Attorney Susan Corkery, of counsel), United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.
Defendant-appellant Kareem A. Ford appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge) convicting him, after a plea of guilty, of one count of possession, with intent to defraud, of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, specifically, credit card numbers, in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). See United States v. Ford, No. 04 Cr. 00146 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2005). The district court sentenced the defendant to a term of 36 months' imprisonment.
We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
On appeal, the defendant does not contest the accuracy of the Guidelines calculation of his sentence. Rather, he argues that the district court erred in failing to mention the Section 3553(a) factors, see 18U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that his sentence is unreasonable because the Sentencing Guidelines' calculation overstated his criminal history and the value of the intended loss from his crime.
We conclude that the district court was not in error inasmuch as it sufficiently considered the Section 3553(a) factors; it need not list them in a "robotic incantation." See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In imposing the Guidelines sentence, the court also sufficiently considered, inter alia, the "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant," 18U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1); (2) "the need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense," id. § 3553(a)(2)(A); and (3) "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct," id. § 3553(a)(6). The sentence reflected these considerations, and defendant points to nothing in the record that constitutes a basis for concluding the sentence to be unreasonable. See United States v. Fleming, 397 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2005) ("As long as the judge is aware of both the statutory requirements and the sentencing range or ranges that are arguably applicable, and nothing in the record indicates misunderstanding about such materials or misperception about their relevance, we will accept that the requisite consideration has occurred.").
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: THOMAS ASREEN, Acting Clerk of the Court By:
* The Honorable Donald C. Pogue, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Sponsored links
