United States v. Goffi, No. 05-3329-CR., 2006 WL 1174399 (2d Cir. May 4, 2006)
Goffi plead guilty to a charge of embezzling money from the Federal Aviation Administration. For that offense, Goffi was sentenced principally to probation for five years. While serving his term of probation, however, Goffi plead guilty in state court to certain sexual abuse of a child related charges. Not nice. As a result of that conviction, the district court sentenced Goffi to a term of 24 months imprisonment for his probation violation -- a sentence that well exceeded the 6 to 12 months imprisonment recommended by the Guidelines for his underlying embezzlement conviction. On appeal, Goffi argued that the district court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment longer than that called for by the Guidelines for his underlying offense. The Second Circuit rejected that argument, joining several other circuits that have held that "a sentencing court may sentence a defendant who violates probation without being restricted by the original Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to his or her crime or a 'departure' therefrom, subject at the upper end to the maximum statutory penalty that may be imposed for commission of the underlying offense." The Second Circuit further noted that Booker does not change this result.
One additional footnote to note from Goffi. In addition to the foregoing, Goffi also argued that the district court failed in sentencing him to provide a proper statement in support of its sentence as required by 18 U.S.C. 3553(c). Specifically, the district court had only stated that it "imposed a sentence of 24 months because of the criminal conduct that gave rise to the violation and the need to protect society." Relying on its "robotic incantations" pronouncement in Crosby, the Second Circuit found that this barebones statement of reasons was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of a statement of reasons.
Looks from here that the Second Circuit has placed great faith in the district courts that they are, in facts, considering all of the 3553(a) factors. Indeed, given the Second Circuit's approval of the Goffi court's statement of reasons, one cannot imagine a statement of reasons that the Second Circuit would reject.