How do we review a federal court's sentencing decision under a deferential abuse of discretion standard?
The following excerpt is from United States v. Vasquez, No. 18-3565(L), No. 19-1840, No. 19-764 (2nd Cir. 2020):
We review a district court's sentencing decision for procedural and substantive reasonableness "under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). A sentencing court commits procedural error if, among other things, it "treats the Guidelines as mandatory," "does not consider the 3553(a) factors," or "fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A sentence is substantively unreasonable "only in exceptional cases
Page 4
where the trial court's decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
