Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Feliz
Citation: 20 F. App'x 65Docket: No. 00-1704
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 9, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is affirmed in the case of Victor Feliz, who appealed a decision following a revocation hearing for violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court, presided over by Judge Reena Raggi, sentenced Feliz to 60 months of imprisonment, the statutory maximum. Feliz did not contest the applicability of policy statements or the statutory maximum but argued that the sentence was unreasonable. The court noted that for a revocation sentence to be upheld, it must consider the applicable policy statements, be within the statutory maximum, and be reasonable. The district court's decision to impose a maximum sentence was found reasonable, taking into account the guidelines' factors. Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which governs revocation hearings, indicates that while recommended sentence ranges are advisory, courts have discretion to impose sentences outside these ranges. Feliz had previously received a 48-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, which included a downward departure due to his substantial assistance to the government. Following his arrest for possessing cocaine while on supervised release, the district court determined an upward departure was warranted due to the seriousness of the offense and Feliz's recidivism. The 60-month sentence was deemed appropriate, especially given that it was half of the previous downward departure from his original sentence. Ultimately, the court found no merit in Feliz’s argument regarding the unreasonableness of the upward departure, leading to the affirmation of the district court’s judgment.