United States v. Longale
United States v. Longale
Opinion
12‐4004‐cr United States v. Longale
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of October, two thousand and 4 thirteen. 5 6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 16 Appellee, 17 18 ‐v.‐ 12‐4004‐cr 19 20 RONALD LONGALE, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT, 21 22 Defendant‐Appellant. 23 24 1 FOR APPELLANT: JOHN A. CIRANDO, D.J. & J. A. CIRANDO, ESQS., 2 Syracuse, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEE: CRAIG A. BENEDICT, ELIZABETH S. RIKER, Assistant 5 United States Attorneys of Counsel, for Richard S. 6 Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern 7 District of New York, Syracuse, NY. 8 9 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of 10 New York (Hurd, J.). 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
13 ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District
14 Court for the Northen District of New York is AFFIRMED.
15 Defendant‐Appellant Ronald Longale appeals from a judgment by the
16 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.)
17 imposing a sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
18 release following Longale’s guilty plea to being a felon in possession of firearms
19 in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2). The district court calculated a
20 Sentencing Guidelines range of 63‐78 months after finding a Base Offense Level
21 of 20 and a Criminal History Category of 6 was warranted in light of Longale’s
22 prior conviction of a “crime of violence,” burglary in the third degree in violation
23 of New York law, and his possession of the firearms. We assume the parties’
24 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
25 presented for review.
2 1 “We review the district court’s interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines
2 de novo and its related findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Cain, 671
3
F.3d 271, 301(2d Cir. 2012). Longale argues that burglary in the third degree
4 should not have been considered a “crime of violence.” This argument is
5 foreclosed by our precedent, specifically United States v. Brown,
514 F.3d 256, 268‐
6 69 (2d Cir. 2008)(concluding that “third‐degree burglary in violation of New York
7 law [is] a crime of violence within the meaning of Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(2)”),
8 which binds this court. See United States v. Jass,
569 F.3d 47, 58(2d Cir. 2009).
9 Because he was previously convicted of a “crime of violence,” Longale is
10 ineligible for specific offense reduction pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(2). We further
11 decline to find that the district court erred in finding a heightened Criminal
12 History Category; deciding not to depart from the Guideline’s range due to
13 Longale’s physical impairments; or that it was improper in its consideration of 18
14 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby 16 AFFIRMED. 17 FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19
20
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished