United States v. Kanagbou

16-2937-cr United States v. Kanagbou 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 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 5th day of March, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 16-2937-cr HENRY KANAGBOU, Defendant-Appellant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant: ISRAEL ARANA, Coral Gables, Florida. For Appellee: RENA PAUL, Assistant United States Attorney, (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Vitaliano, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on August 23, 2016, is AFFIRMED. Defendant Henry Kanagbou (“Kanagbou”) was convicted after a five-day jury trial of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The district court imposed a below Guidelines sentence of 36 months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Kanagbou raises principally two arguments. First, Kanagbou argues his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court’s sentencing decision is unsupported by reliable facts. He claims that the district court misunderstood his minor role in the conspiracy compared to his codefendant Harold Bowens’s (“Bowens”) major role. Second, Kanagbou contends that the Government improperly called Special Agent Edward Alahverdian (“Agent Alahverdian”) of the Drug Enforcement Administration as an expert to bolster the credibility of its cooperating witness, Marlon Myers (“Myers”). We review sentencing determinations for both substantive and procedural reasonableness. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189–90 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). Likewise, “[w]e review the district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Zuchowicz v. United States, 140 F.3d 381, 386 (2d Cir. 1998). In undertaking this review, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior 2 proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm the district court’s decision. I. Procedural and Substantive Unreasonableness A sentence ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals