19-916-cr United States v. Pocinoc UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 TO 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 2nd day of November, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 19-916-cr ARTIOM POCINOC, Defendant-Appellant. 1 For Defendant-Appellant: WALTER MACK, Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack, New York, NY. For Appellee: ANDREY SPEKTOR, Assistant United States Attorney (Kevin Trowel, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. Appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Cogan, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-appellant Artiom Pocinoc appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying his post-sentencing motion to amend the presentence report (“PSR”) prepared by the Probation Department. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. Pocinoc pleaded guilty to a single count of illegal gambling in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. The PSR also discusses, among other things, four types of Pocinoc’s uncharged conduct outside of the crime of conviction: (1) referring a member of another organized criminal enterprise to one of his co-defendants to facilitate debt-collection; (2) running a fraudulent patent and trademark business and knowing that it was fraudulent; (3) submitting a false immigration statement by omitting his participation in the said business; and (4) making misrepresentations in applications for public benefits. In arguing that the district court should have stricken such discussions of the uncharged conduct from the PSR, Pocinoc relies on Rule 32(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the PSR “must exclude the following: . . . any . . . information that, if disclosed, might result in physical or other harm to the defendant . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(3). In his view, the PSR’s discussions of his uncharged conduct outside of the crime of conviction would “harm” him by influencing the resolution ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals