741 Fed.Appx. 768 (11th Cir. 2018), 18-13176, United States v. Falco

Docket Nº:18-13176
Citation:741 Fed.Appx. 768
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pasqualino FALCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Daniel Matzkin, Stephen Schlessinger, Madeleine R. Shirley, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Neison M. Marks, Federal...
Judge Panel:Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 01, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 768

741 Fed.Appx. 768 (11th Cir. 2018)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Pasqualino FALCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-13176

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

November 1, 2018

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:06-cr-80188-RLR-2

Daniel Matzkin, Stephen Schlessinger, Madeleine R. Shirley, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Neison M. Marks, Federal Public Defender’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Page 769

Pasqualino Falco appeals his 12-month-and-1-day sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release, which was imposed on his conviction for carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2119 and 2, and brandishing a weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because it overlooked the rehabilitative purpose of supervised release when weighing the factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935-36 (11th Cir. 2016). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing it is unreasonable. Id.

If a defendant violates a condition of his supervised release, the district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release and impose a prison term. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). When revoking a term of supervised release, "the court should sanction primarily the defendants breach of trust, while taking into account, to a limited...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP