United States v. Cameron

19-2255 United States v. Cameron UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 19-2255 TODD A. CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: HERBERT L. GREENMAN, Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria, LLP, Buffalo, New York. For Appellee: MONICA J. RICHARDS, Assistant United States Attorney for James P. Kennedy, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, New York. 1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and the case is REMANDED with the direction that the district court vacate Cameron’s sentence for the limited purpose of correcting the error noted herein and resentence him based upon a proper calculation of his criminal history category and Guidelines range. Todd Cameron appeals from a July 18, 2019, judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.) sentencing him to 36 months in prison on one count of subscribing to a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and 51 months in prison on one count of harboring an illegal alien for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i), to run concurrently, and ordering restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case. On appeal, Cameron challenges his sentence on procedural and substantive grounds. He argues principally that the district court failed to group his offenses as required under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. Cameron further argues — and the Government agrees — that the district court improperly calculated Cameron’s criminal history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. Finally, he asserts that the district court, by failing to adequately consider mitigating circumstances, erred procedurally in assessing the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and substantively in imposing an unreasonable sentence. “We review a sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362, 367 (2d Cir. 2016). A “deferential …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals