United States v. Nieves

17-1203 United States v. Nieves 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 16th day of March, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, VALERIE E. CAPRONI, District Judge.* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, 17-1203 v. JUAN ANTHONY NIEVES, AKA TONY, Defendant-Appellant. * Judge Valerie E. Caproni, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 FOR APPELLEE: Daniel B. Tehrani and Won S. Shin, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Darrell Fields, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. Appeal from a June 19, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cathy Seibel, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s June 19, 2017 judgment be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Juan Anthony Nieves, a/k/a “Tony” (“Nieves”), appeals the District Court’s amended judgment entered June 19, 2017.1 Nieves was convicted of one count of impersonation of a federal officer or employee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 and one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The District Court sentenced him on April 4, 2017 principally to thirty-six months’ imprisonment on the first count and seventy-two months on the second count, the terms to run concurrently. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case. Nieves argues on appeal that his sentence is (1) procedurally unreasonable; and (2) substantively unreasonable. 1. Procedural Reasonableness Nieves argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erroneously “double-counted” the same conduct for the purpose of applying two sentence- 1 Nieves’s Notice of Appeal, filed on April 11, 2017 and entered on April 24, refers only to the District Court’s judgment entered April 4, 2017. In fact, the District Court sentenced Nieves on April 4 but did not enter judgment until April 21. It then entered three amended judgments at its own instance on May 16, May 23, and June 19 to correct clerical errors, as allowed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. ...

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