U.S. v. Jacobson, No. 1856

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWINTER; At the sentencing hearing; Duffy; Duffy's
Citation15 F.3d 19
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stanley JACOBSON, Nora Jacobson, Maureen Conlan, Richard Fromme, Gerhard Plaut, Osvaldo Stejmberg, Alan Jacobson, Lawrence Galina, Kenneth Cohen, Steven Goldfarb, Charles Berliner, Paul Berger, Nicholas Lobasso, Michael Bouer, John Mahon, Lawrence Nemeroff, Richard Lippman, Steven Rodman, James Bozzi, Defendants, and Andrew Kogut, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 93-1217.
Decision Date19 January 1994
Docket NumberD,No. 1856

Page 19

15 F.3d 19
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Stanley JACOBSON, Nora Jacobson, Maureen Conlan, Richard
Fromme, Gerhard Plaut, Osvaldo Stejmberg, Alan Jacobson,
Lawrence Galina, Kenneth Cohen, Steven Goldfarb, Charles
Berliner, Paul Berger, Nicholas Lobasso, Michael Bouer, John
Mahon, Lawrence Nemeroff, Richard Lippman, Steven Rodman,
James Bozzi, Defendants,
and
Andrew Kogut, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1856, Docket 93-1217.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Aug. 11, 1993.
Decided Jan. 19, 1994.

Page 20

Susan E. Brune, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Mary Jo White, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Nelson W. Cunningham, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.

Jerry D. Bernstein, New York City (Michele C. Cacioppo, Bernstein & Maffeo, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Before: WINTER, MINER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Andrew Kogut appeals from Judge Duffy's imposition of a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and a $10,000 fine following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (1988), to receive misbranded and adulterated drugs in interstate commerce and to commit wire fraud. Although Kogut's plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence, Kogut challenges the length of his sentence compared with those of his co-conspirators as a denial of due process, U.S. Const. amend. V, based on Judge Duffy's reference to Kogut's national origin at the

Page 21

sentencing hearing. After oral argument, we asked Judge Duffy to supplement the record within twenty-one days regarding the disparity in sentences among the co-conspirators but retained jurisdiction. Judge Duffy thereafter filed an opinion questioning his power to act while we retained jurisdiction but explaining his reasons for the sentencing disparity. We address the proper procedure for supplementing the record and hold that Kogut has not waived his right to appeal from an arguably unconstitutional sentence. However, we affirm.

Kogut, a licensed pharmacist, pled guilty to participation in a drug diversion scheme in which he purchased black-market drugs at a discount and resold them to consumers. The drugs were obtained through Medicaid fraud, illegal use of samples, or outright theft. Purchasers were defrauded and endangered because the drugs lacked control numbers and expiration dates necessary to ensure the efficacy and safety of the medications. The government and Kogut agreed to an offense level of 11 and a criminal history category of I, dictating a sentence in the range of eight to fourteen months. In the plea agreement, Kogut and the government agreed not to appeal if the sentence was within that range.

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Duffy stated:

You [Kogut] come to this country from behind what was then the Isron [sic] Curtain.... You come here and one thing you have going for you is brains.... You have brains, you have an opportunity given to you by the new country. The one that you left certainly would never give you anything like this opportunity.... Maybe it is a failing in the generation from which I came. We always believed that if we got something, we were obligated to give something back, something of value. You don't seem to believe that. You got all kinds of things, you got freedom, you got an opportunity to use your brains, you had a damned good life; and for peanuts you were willing to screw it up without regard to the people whose lives you might be smashing. You had as much feeling for them as the Romanian secret police might have for people who are enemies of society--nothing whatsoever.

Judge Duffy then sentenced Kogut to twelve months' imprisonment.

Subsequent to Kogut's sentencing, his co-conspirators, who were sentenced at the same Guidelines level, received more lenient sentences, most splitting between four or five months of imprisonment and equal time in home detention. In particular, two co-conspirators whom the government considered more culpable than Kogut received shorter jail terms, six months and eight months respectively, although their fines were four times as large. The government conceded at oral argument that Kogut's status as a naturalized citizen was not a valid basis for a disparity in sentences and that Judge Duffy's remarks at sentencing gave no basis other than that status for Kogut's sentence.

We entered an order requesting Judge Duffy to supplement the record within twenty-one days regarding his reasons for Kogut's sentence. We retained jurisdiction, however, and there was no formal remand.

In his opinion elaborating on the reasons for the sentence, Judge Duffy stated that he imposed a harsher penalty on Kogut because of his intelligence and lack of remorse rather than because of his naturalized status. In this regard, Judge Duffy pointed to his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
395 practice notes
  • El v. Artuz, No. 98 Civ. 7564(DC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 30, 2000
    ...responsibility for his conduct are well-recognized as factors that may be considered in sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 23 (2d Cir.1994) (finding a defendant's lack of remorse to be an individual, distinctive factor that may support sentencing disparity); Gerac......
  • Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., Docket No. 08-3947-cv.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 1, 2010
    ...the evidence, can reconsider the claim in light of what we have said. The case is therefore remanded pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.1994), for further proceedings for the limited purpose of the district court's re-examination of the false advertising claim in acco......
  • People v. Panizzon, No. S046141
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 18, 1996
    ...or otherwise defective at the time it was given. Contrary to defendant's assertions, nothing in U.S. v. Jacobson (2d Cir.1994) 15 F.3d 19 compels a different conclusion. In that case, the defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to receive misbranded and adulterated drugs in interst......
  • U.S. v. Schwarz, Docket No. 00-1479.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 28, 2002
    ...Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, we remanded this case to the district court using the procedure we enunciated in United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994), for the limited purpose of determining whether the Walsh affidavit, either alone or in combination with the other state......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
395 cases
  • El v. Artuz, No. 98 Civ. 7564(DC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 30, 2000
    ...responsibility for his conduct are well-recognized as factors that may be considered in sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 23 (2d Cir.1994) (finding a defendant's lack of remorse to be an individual, distinctive factor that may support sentencing disparity); Gerac......
  • Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., Docket No. 08-3947-cv.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 1, 2010
    ...the evidence, can reconsider the claim in light of what we have said. The case is therefore remanded pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.1994), for further proceedings for the limited purpose of the district court's re-examination of the false advertising claim in acco......
  • People v. Panizzon, No. S046141
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 18, 1996
    ...or otherwise defective at the time it was given. Contrary to defendant's assertions, nothing in U.S. v. Jacobson (2d Cir.1994) 15 F.3d 19 compels a different conclusion. In that case, the defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to receive misbranded and adulterated drugs in interst......
  • U.S. v. Schwarz, Docket No. 00-1479.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 28, 2002
    ...Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, we remanded this case to the district court using the procedure we enunciated in United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir.1994), for the limited purpose of determining whether the Walsh affidavit, either alone or in combination with the other state......
  • 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