16-2387-cr United States v. Patterson

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 8th day of March, two thousand nineteen.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge.*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,

Appellee, 16-2387-cr

v.

JASON PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

* Judge Richard M. Berman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1 FOR APPELLEE: Matthew Laroche and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Anthony Cecutti, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Vernon S. Broderick, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court, imposed on June 24, 2016, be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Jason Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of Title

(g)(1). Patterson was sentenced to a term of 46 months’ incarceration, to be followed by three years’ supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

On appeal, Patterson argues that the District Court erred in calculating the applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range because it improperly counted two previous convictions for third-degree robbery in violation of New York Penal Law Section 160.05 as “crimes of violence.” At the time the case was submitted, the appeal presented an open question: whether the New York offense of robbery in the third degree constitutes a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Today, this question is no longer open. Our recent decision, United States v. Moore, __ F.3d__, __ (2d. Cir. 2019), No. 16-1604, slip op. at 17 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019) forecloses Patterson’s arguments. As we held there, “New York robbery in the third degree is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1).” Id. The District Court therefore correctly counted both of Patterson’s prior convictions as crimes of violence, and thus properly calculated his Guidelines sentence.

2 CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Patterson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the June 24, 2016 judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3