U.S. v. Deming, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Citation | 269 F.3d 107 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 01-1112,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT |
Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. TODD DEMING,, DREW DEMING, BRUCE DEMING, AND ANN DEMING, DEFENDANTS |
Decision Date | 01 August 2001 |
Page 107
v.
TODD DEMING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
Page 108
August Term, 2001
Decided: October 11, 2001
Defendant Todd Deming appeals from a final judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge). Deming argues that the District Court erroneously applied a two-point enhancement to the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(3), which applies to defendants who commit their offense through mass-marketing.
Affirmed.
Richard E. Kwasnik, Law Office of Richard E. Kwasnik, New York, Ny, for Defendant-Appellant.
Adam H. Schuman, Assistant United States Attorney (Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, Ny, for Appellee.
Before: Straub, Katzmann, and Magill,1 Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
Defendant-Appellant Todd Deming ("Deming") appeals from a February 12, 2001 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge) convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of conspiring to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and sentencing him principally to fifty- one months' imprisonment. On appeal, Deming challenges only his sentence, arguing that the District Court erred in applying a two-point enhancement to the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(3),
Page 109
on the ground that he committed his offense through mass-marketing.
"In reviewing a sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, we `accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous,' 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), and `will not overturn the court's application of the Guidelines to the facts before it unless we conclude that there has been an abuse of discretion.'" United States v. Hernandez-Santiago, 92 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Santiago, 906 F.2d 867, 871 (2d Cir. 1990)). "However, [w]here a sentencing court's application of the Guidelines approaches a purely legal question, we employ a de novo standard of review." Id. (internal quotation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Vasquez, 03-1763.
...to the facts before it unless we conclude that there has been an abuse of discretion."). Ravelo and Coriaty cite United States v. Deming, 269 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir.2001) (same), which cites United States v. Hernandez-Santiago, 92 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir.1996) (same), which cites United States ......
-
U.S. v. Coriaty, Docket No. 01-1450.
...Sentencing] Guidelines to the facts before it unless we conclude that there has been an abuse of discretion." United States v. Deming, 269 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam) (internal citation and punctuation marks omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (permitting appellate courts to......
-
U.S. v. Martino
...135 months. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review We review questions of law concerning the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Deming, 269 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam). Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id. II. Martino's Apprendi Challenge Martino's threshold argument ......
-
Montalvo v. Lavalley, 11-cv-05200 (NG)
...issues to the court's attention. Unlike Article 78 petitions, § 440.10 motions generally toll AEDPA's limitations period. See Hodge, 269 F.3d at 107 n.2. However, that Mr. Montalvo attached a § 440.10 motion to his Article 78 petition does not change the result here because, if the § 440.10......