U.S. v. Deming, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Citation269 F.3d 107
Docket NumberDocket 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 Date01 August 2001

Page 107

269 F.3d 107 (2nd Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
TODD DEMING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

Page 108

DREW DEMING, BRUCE DEMING, AND ANN DEMING, DEFENDANTS.
Docket No. 01-1112
August Term, 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit
Argued: October 5, 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
11 cases
  • U.S. v. Vasquez, 03-1763.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 10, 2004
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 21, 2002
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 21, 2002
    ...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)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 8, 2014
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT