16-2725 United States v. Radik Fakhretdinov 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, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of December, two thousand eighteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, Circuit Judge, J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge.* ________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 16-2725 RADIK FAKHRETDINOV, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________________________ For Appellee: Jordan Estes, Matthew Podolsky, Daniel B. Tehrani, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. For Defendant-Appellant: Susan C. Wolfe, New York, NY. *Judge J. Paul Oetken, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Woods, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Radik Fakhretdinov appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on July 28, 2016 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Woods, J.) sentencing him to twelve months and one day imprisonment. On January 24, 2018, this Court remanded Fakhretdinov’s appeal to the district court pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994), so that the district court could determine whether it “would have sentenced Appellant to a lesser term of imprisonment if defense counsel had properly informed [the district court] of the immigration consequences of a term of imprisonment of a year or more.” Supp. App. 12. This Court’s Order also provided that, if either party wished to appeal the district court’s determination, “either party may restore the matter to the active docket of this Court by letter without filing a further notice of appeal.” Supp. App. 13. On April 6, 2018, the district court declined to impose a shorter term of imprisonment. Supp. App. 52-53. Thereafter, Fakhretdinov restored his appeal. Fakhretdinov argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it does not comport with the “parsimony clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which requires that a sentence be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” We have held that “to hold that a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is invalid under the parsimony ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals