United States v. Cruz, 100314 FED2, 13-2809-cr

Docket Nº:13-2809-cr
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. AKEEM CRUZ, AKA VYBE, AKA MELLO, Defendant, ROBERT BLAKE, AKA BANKS, AKA MIKE BLAKE, AKA BLADE, AKA BA, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:For Appellee: Winston M. Paes and Susan Corkery, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY For Defendant-Appellant: Lawrence D. Gerzog, New York, NY
Judge Panel:Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 03, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v.

AKEEM CRUZ, AKA VYBE, AKA MELLO, Defendant, ROBERT BLAKE, AKA BANKS, AKA MIKE BLAKE, AKA BLADE, AKA BA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-2809-cr

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

October 3, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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 3rd day of October, two thousand fourteen.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.).

For Appellee: Winston M. Paes and Susan Corkery, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY

For Defendant-Appellant: Lawrence D. Gerzog, New York, NY

Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED, in part, and REMANDED, in part, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant-Appellant Robert Blake appeals from a judgment of conviction entered May 24, 2013, and sentence entered on July 15, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.), after Blake pleaded guilty to transportation of an individual for the purpose of prostitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2421. The district court sentenced Blake to 84 months of imprisonment, less 177 days already served, and three years of supervised release. As a condition of supervised release, the district court required Blake to "comply with any sex offender registration requirements mandated by the law." Appellant's App'x 164. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, as well as with the issues on appeal.

We review a district court's sentencing decision for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Employing that standard, we "must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error . . . [and] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed." Id. Blake contends that the district court erred both procedurally and substantively.

Blake first argues that the district court committed procedural error in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on Blake's false testimony provided in support of his request for a Fatico hearing. He raises four challenges to this enhancement.

As his first challenge, Blake contends that the district court clearly erred in relying upon a statement made by Serina Merlo, his girlfriend, as evidence that his testimony in support of his request for a Fatico hearing was false. He acknowledges that in the sentencing context, a district court may rely on any source, including reliable hearsay evidence and out-of-court declarations, so long as it has "sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 & cmt. However, he contends that the statement...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP