19-4192 United States of America v. Shahbaz 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 30th day of June, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, GERARD E. LYNCH, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v- 19-4192 MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FOR APPELLEE: KONSTANTIN LANTSMAN, Assistant United States Attorney (Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Leonard C. Boyle, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ROBERT M. FROST, JR., Frost Bussert LLC, New Haven, Connecticut. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-appellant Muhammad Shahbaz appeals the district court's judgment entered December 4, 2019, convicting him, following his guilty plea, of one count of food stamp fraud and sentencing him principally to 33 months' imprisonment and restitution of approximately $1.5 million. He argues that the term of imprisonment in his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 1 1 Shahbaz also appealed from the district court's order entered July 31, 2020, denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On May 24, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing Shahbaz's compassionate release appeal. This Court so-ordered the stipulation on May 25, 2021. 2 Shahbaz challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We review this challenge "under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). "A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals