Sentencing Disparities, Cooperation, and Harsh Confinement: Commentary on United States v. Samia (2d Cir. 2025)

Sentencing Disparities, Cooperation, and Harsh Confinement: A Detailed Commentary on United States v. Samia (2d Cir. 2025)

I. Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in United States v. Samia, No. 24‑1553‑cr (2d Cir. Nov. 18, 2025), affirms a substantial, but below‑Guidelines, sentence of 325 months for a contract killing carried out in the Philippines by Adam Samia on behalf of international criminal figure Paul Le Roux. Although the order appears as a non‑precedential “summary order” under Second Circuit practice, it is nevertheless an instructive and carefully reasoned application of modern federal sentencing doctrine.

The decision sits at the intersection of three recurring issues in federal criminal practice:

  • How appellate courts review sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness;
  • How district courts may (and may not) use co‑defendant sentences and cooperation agreements under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and § 3553(e); and
  • How harsh conditions of confinement, rehabilitation, and health issues function as mitigating factors.

In addition, the opinion addresses a targeted claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and clarifies when such claims can be resolved on direct appeal.

Because this case arises after the Supreme Court’s decision in Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635 (2023) (concerning the admissibility of a co‑defendant’s redacted confession at Samia’s trial), it represents a later, focused dispute over how severely Samia should be punished, not whether he is guilty. The Second Circuit affirms the sentencing judge’s broad discretion to impose a very serious term of imprisonment while still meaningfully accounting for mitigating circumstances.

This commentary proceeds as follows: after summarizing the facts and the holding, it delves into the precedents the court applies, the structure of the court’s reasoning on both sentencing and ineffective assistance, and the likely impact of this order on future litigation, especially in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

II. Case Overview and Background

A. The Parties and Procedural Posture

  • Appellee: United States of America, represented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
  • Defendant–Appellant: Adam Samia (also known as “Sal” or “Adam Samic”).

Samia was convicted of conspiracy to murder and kidnap in a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a), based on his participation in a murder‑for‑hire plot in the Philippines. The victim, referred to as Ms. Lee, was killed as part of a contract killing scheme orchestrated by Paul Le Roux, an international criminal mastermind. Samia acted with co‑defendant Carl Stillwell.

On May 22, 2024, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York entered an amended judgment resentencing Samia primarily to 325 months (approx. 27 years) of imprisonment. The Guidelines recommended life imprisonment.

Samia appealed that amended judgment to the Second Circuit. The appeal was heard by a panel consisting of Circuit Judges José A. Cabranes, Michael H. Park, and Steven J. Menashi.

B. Issues on Appeal

Samia raised three principal arguments:
  1. Procedural unreasonableness of the sentence. He claimed the district court:
    • Misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (the “unwarranted disparities” factor), particularly in comparing his sentence to those of Le Roux and Stillwell;
    • Improperly justified imposing a sentence higher than the district’s average for premeditated killings under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1; and
    • Failed to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, including harsh confinement conditions, rehabilitation, and health problems.
  2. Substantive unreasonableness of the sentence. He maintained that, even if procedurally sound, the 325‑month sentence was excessive, especially given his mitigating circumstances and the fact that the Guidelines range was life.
  3. Ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his attorney at resentencing was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the government’s and the court’s characterization of him as having been “a member of the Le Roux organization for years, at least four years.”

The Second Circuit rejected each of these contentions and affirmed the sentence.

III. Summary of the Second Circuit’s Decision

A. Standards of Review

The court applied the now‑standard two‑part review of sentences:

  • Procedural reasonableness – reviewed for abuse of discretion; but here, because Samia did not object below, nominally reviewed for “plain error.” However, the panel explicitly noted that his arguments failed even under the more favorable (to the defendant) abuse‑of‑discretion standard.
  • Substantive reasonableness – also under abuse of discretion, asking whether this was one of the “exceptional cases” where the sentence is “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.”

B. Holding on Sentencing

The Second Circuit held that the district court:

  • Committed no procedural error in its consideration and explanation of:
    • § 3553(a)(6) (disparities) and co‑defendant comparisons (Le Roux and Stillwell);
    • The relative severity of Samia’s sentence vis‑à‑vis the district’s average for premeditated killings; and
    • Other § 3553(a) factors, including harsh conditions of confinement, rehabilitation, and health.
  • Did not abuse its discretion substantively in imposing 325 months, given:
    • The seriousness and for‑profit nature of the killing;
    • Samia’s leadership role vis‑à‑vis Stillwell;
    • His perjury at trial and lack of cooperation; and
    • The fact that 325 months was a significant downward variance from the Guidelines‑recommended life sentence.

C. Holding on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Applying Strickland v. Washington, the court concluded:

  • Counsel’s decision not to contest characterizing Samia as a “member” of Le Roux’s organization over several years was not objectively unreasonable.
    • It was a strategic choice—counsel instead attacked the nature and scope of Samia’s single crime and his relative culpability compared to Le Roux.
  • Samia failed to show prejudice: there was no reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a different sentence had counsel drawn some finer distinction between being a “member” versus a “contractor.”

Because the factual record was sufficiently developed, and the resolution of the Sixth Amendment claim was “beyond any doubt,” the court exercised its discretion to decide the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, rather than require a § 2255 motion.

IV. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Sentencing Reasonableness: Thompson, Friedberg, and Cavera

The panel begins from settled Second Circuit doctrine:

  • United States v. Thompson, 921 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2019) and United States v. Friedberg, 558 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2009) confirm that appellate review of federal sentences encompasses both procedural and substantive reasonableness, and that both are reviewed under an “abuse of discretion” standard.
  • United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) is the Second Circuit’s foundational en banc decision articulating the modern framework post‑Gall/Rita/Kimbrough. It emphasizes:
    • Appellate courts ensure that sentencing judges properly consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and
    • Appellate courts allow substantial latitude in weighing those factors, recognizing the district courts’ “institutional advantages.”

Cavera is particularly important because it sets the tone: sentencing is not a mechanical exercise; it is a discretionary, fact‑intensive judgment call, and the appellate court’s role is narrow.

2. Substantive Unreasonableness: Leon, Eaglin, and Darrah

The panel’s description of substantive unreasonableness draws on three cases:

  • United States v. Leon, 663 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 2011) – The court will “set aside a district court’s substantive determination only in exceptional cases.” This is a very demanding standard; reversal is rare.
  • United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) – A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it is “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” This colorful formulation has become the Second Circuit’s shorthand for just how extreme a sentence must be before it is overturned on substantive grounds.
  • United States v. Darrah, 132 F.4th 643 (2d Cir. 2025) – The court quotes Darrah for the proposition that, although it does not formally presume within‑Guidelines sentences reasonable (unlike some other circuits), it is “difficult to find that a below‑Guidelines sentence is unreasonable.” This is crucial here: Samia’s 325‑month sentence is significantly below the Guidelines‑recommended life term, and Darrah strongly reinforces the presumption in practice, if not in name, that such a sentence will nearly always be upheld.

3. Preserving Errors and Standards of Review: Verkhoglyad

Because Samia did not raise certain procedural objections at sentencing, the court references:

  • United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) – explaining that issues not raised before the district court are ordinarily reviewed only for “plain error” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).

However, the panel skillfully avoids resting its decision solely on the more deferential plain‑error standard. It expressly concludes that Samia’s procedural arguments fail even under the less deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review. This allows the panel to:

  • Foreclose Samia’s claim that his counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him by imposing a “more deferential” appellate standard; and
  • Avoid any serious debate about whether particular issues were or were not preserved.

4. Sentencing Disparities and Co‑Defendant Comparisons: Frias and § 3553(a)(6)

Samia’s principal procedural challenge turned on his reading of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the “unwarranted disparities” factor. The court relies on:

  • United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2008) – which holds that § 3553(a)(6) is primarily about nationwide sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants, not necessarily parity among co‑defendants in the same case. It specifically notes that the statute “does not require” a district court to consider disparities between co‑defendants.

This matters because Samia argued the district court erred in comparing his sentence to those of:

  • Paul Le Roux – the organizational leader and mastermind who, despite higher culpability, received a lower sentence as a result of cooperation and different charges; and
  • Carl Stillwell – Samia’s direct co‑conspirator, whom Samia claimed was more deeply involved and should have received a sentence closer to his.

Frias makes clear that while co‑defendant comparisons are not required by § 3553(a)(6), nothing prohibits a sentencing judge from using them as an additional point of reference. The Second Circuit underscores that here: it was not error for the district court to consider co‑defendant sentences, especially since Samia himself invited those comparisons in his written sentencing submission.

5. Cooperation and Sentencing: § 3553(e) and Missouri v. Frye

In justifying the disparity between Samia’s sentence and that of Le Roux, the district court (and, in turn, the Second Circuit) invoked:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) – which explicitly authorizes sentencing below statutory minimums to reflect a defendant’s “substantial assistance” to the government. This embodies a congressional policy choice: cooperation justifies leniency.
  • Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) – cited for the observation that plea bargaining (and, by extension, cooperation) often leads to “individuals who accept a plea bargain receiving shorter sentences than other individuals who are less morally culpable but take a chance and go to trial.”

By leaning on Frye, the Second Circuit normalizes an outcome that may seem intuitively jarring: a mastermind (Le Roux) can lawfully receive a shorter sentence than his hired killer (Samia) if he cooperates and pleads guilty, whereas Samia does neither and even perjures himself at trial. The court treats this not as an anomaly, but as an expected and acceptable result of the statutory and systemic design.

6. Sentencing Weight and Discretion: Solis

On the question of how much weight the district court could assign to various aggravating and mitigating considerations, the panel cites:

  • United States v. Solis, 18 F.4th 395 (2d Cir. 2021) – which emphasizes:
    “The particular weight to be afforded aggravating and mitigating factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge, with appellate courts seeking to ensure only that a factor can bear the weight assigned it under the totality of circumstances in the case.”

This quote encapsulates the appellate posture: deference is the default, and only when a factor cannot rationally bear the weight assigned—e.g., when a minor consideration dominates to produce a draconian sentence—will the appellate court intervene.

7. Ineffective Assistance: Strickland, Bodnar, Gaskin, and Doe

On the Sixth Amendment claim, the court relies on well‑established precedents:

  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) – the canonical two‑prong test:
    1. Deficient performance: counsel’s conduct must fall below an “objective standard of reasonableness.”
    2. Prejudice: there must be a “reasonable probability” that, but for counsel’s errors, the result would have been different.
  • United States v. Bodnar, 37 F.4th 833 (2d Cir. 2022) – elaborates that:
    • Counsel’s performance is deficient only where errors are so serious that the attorney did not function as “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment; and
    • The burden of proving prejudice is “heavy.”
  • United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2004) – cited for the “heavy burden” language regarding prejudice, underscoring how difficult it is for defendants to prevail on ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal.
  • United States v. Doe, 365 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2004) – outlines the options for handling ineffective assistance claims raised on direct appeal:
    1. Decline to hear the claim and leave it to a later 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion;
    2. Remand for factual development; or
    3. Decide the claim on the existing record.

The panel, citing Bodnar, notes that while the usual practice is to avoid resolving such claims on direct appeal, the court may decide them when the record is fully developed and the resolution is “beyond any doubt” or in the interest of justice. That is the case here.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning on Sentencing

1. Procedural Reasonableness: Use of § 3553(a)(6) and Co‑Defendant Comparisons

Procedural reasonableness examines the process by which the sentence was reached: did the judge consider the proper factors, rely on accurate facts, and adequately explain the result?

(a) Use of § 3553(a)(6) and Co‑Defendants

Section 3553(a)(6) directs courts to consider:

“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”

Samia argued that the district court’s comparisons to Le Roux and Stillwell were flawed. The panel’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

  1. Co‑defendant comparisons are not required, but permitted. Relying on Frias, the court reinforces that § 3553(a)(6) does not require parity between co‑defendants. Nevertheless, nothing bars the district court from considering such comparisons as part of its § 3553(a) analysis.
  2. Samia himself invited the comparisons. The panel points out that in his sentencing submission, Samia compared his circumstances to those of Le Roux and Stillwell. That undercuts any claim that the district court erred procedurally by engaging in the very comparative analysis the defense urged.
  3. The comparisons were rational and adequately explained. The court then evaluates the content of the comparisons:
    • Samia vs. Le Roux. The district court acknowledged Le Roux’s higher culpability as leader of the organization. However, it nonetheless imposed a longer sentence on Samia because:
      • Le Roux cooperated extensively with the government;
      • Le Roux pled guilty to different charges; and
      • Samia did not cooperate and “perjured himself at trial.”
      This is fully consistent with § 3553(e) and the systemic reality recognized in Frye.
    • Samia vs. Stillwell. The district court found Samia was “undoubtedly more culpable” than Stillwell, because:
      • He recruited Stillwell;
      • He personally shot Ms. Lee; and
      • His participation in the conspiracy predated Stillwell’s and involved “more extensive conduct.”
      The appellate court notes that from 2008 to 2012 Samia had multiple discussions with Le Roux’s organization about murder‑for‑hire jobs. That record supported the finding that Samia’s role was deeper and more sustained.

In essence, the panel holds that the district court was not only permitted to consider co‑defendant sentences but did so in a nuanced, fact‑based way that was fully explained. No procedural error arises from such a reasoned comparative analysis.

(b) Comparison to the District’s Average for Premeditated Killings

The district court also consulted empirical data: in SDNY, for cases where Guideline § 2A1.1 (premeditated killing) applied between 2015 and 2023, the average sentence was:

  • 221 months of imprisonment; and
  • 58 months of supervised release.

Samia’s sentence of 325 months’ imprisonment exceeded that average. He argued this disparity was impermissible. The Second Circuit disagreed:

  • The district court expressly acknowledged the average and then explained why Samia deserved a higher term:
    • The killing was for “nothing more than money” (pure murder‑for‑hire);
    • Samia kept “mementos” of the crime and “bragged” that killing a person was easier than killing a dog; and
    • He traveled with the goal of killing up to four people and, even after the murder, tried to kill another person.
  • Given those aggravating facts, the court concluded that a longer‑than‑average sentence was justified. The Second Circuit accepts this as an adequately reasoned, individualized explanation.

Far from being arbitrary, the district court anchored its departure from the average in the distinctive cruelty, mercenary motive, and scope of Samia’s conduct.

(c) Consideration of Other § 3553(a) Factors: Harsh Confinement, Rehabilitation, Health

Samia argued that the district court failed to properly account for:

  • The “harsh and deplorable” conditions at MCC, MDC, and McCreary;
  • His rehabilitative efforts and clean disciplinary record; and
  • His health problems.

The opinion carefully recounts the district court’s discussion of these factors:

  • The judge acknowledged that if only “the nature and circumstances of the offense” were considered, “it would be hard to say that a life sentence wouldn’t be appropriate.” But:
    • She expressly considered the harsh confinement conditions, agreed that “time is harder” under such circumstances, and found that these conditions warranted a shorter sentence.
    • She recognized that Samia had no disciplinary infractions for nearly nine years, and had made “significant efforts toward rehabilitation.”
    • She was “cognizant” of his health issues.

The Second Circuit thus concludes that the district court not only considered, but explicitly credited, these mitigating factors. Procedurally, that satisfies § 3553(a).

2. Substantive Reasonableness: Weight of Factors and the Below‑Guidelines Context

Substantive review asks: even if the process was correct, is the final sentence so extreme as to be outside the range of permissible outcomes?

Samia argued that the district court overweighted the seriousness of his offense and underweighted his health, conditions of confinement, and rehabilitation.

The panel’s answer is straightforward:

  • Citing Solis, the court reiterates that the weight given each factor is “firmly committed” to the sentencing judge’s discretion, as long as it is rational.
  • Here, the district court:
    • Explicitly recognized all of the mitigating factors Samia raised;
    • Considered the need to avoid disparities and the harshness of his incarceration; and
    • Nevertheless determined that the gravity, premeditation, and profit motive of the killing justified a severe punishment.
  • Crucially, the judge did not accept the Guidelines recommendation of life imprisonment. Instead, she imposed a substantial downward variance to 325 months. That is a powerful indicator that she meaningfully balanced the aggravating and mitigating considerations.

Given Darrah’s admonition that it is “difficult to find that a below‑Guidelines sentence is unreasonable,” the Second Circuit easily concludes that the 325‑month term is not “shockingly high” nor “unsupportable as a matter of law.” Whatever one might think of the moral or policy merits of such a sentence, it is comfortably within the legally permissible range.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

1. The Claimed Error

Samia’s ineffective assistance claim was narrowly framed. He argued that his sentencing counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to object when:

the government and the district court characterized him as having been “a member of the Le Roux organization for years, at least four years.”

Samia’s theory was that:

  • He had done work for Le Roux in 2008, and had “some communications” in 2009 and 2010;
  • But this did not amount to a continuous four‑year membership; rather, he was more like a contractor intermittently seeking murder‑for‑hire opportunities.

He argued that counsel should have stressed the distinction between being a “full member” and a more peripheral, transactional figure.

2. Application of the Strickland Standard

(a) Deficient Performance?

The court finds no deficiency for two reasons:

  1. Trial strategy. It was not “objectively unreasonable” for counsel to decline to litigate the semantic distinction between “member” and “contractor,” particularly where doing so might have distracted from more central arguments about the scope of Samia’s single crime and his lesser culpability compared to Le Roux.
  2. Concession within a broader argument. Counsel could reasonably choose to concede a broad characterization of Samia’s association with Le Roux in order to maintain credibility while focusing the court’s attention on where Samia’s culpability was arguably less—e.g., he was not the architect of a global criminal enterprise.

Under Strickland, choices like these—whether to object to every factual nuance or to prioritize big‑picture mitigating themes—are presumptively strategic. Courts are strongly discouraged from second‑guessing them with the benefit of hindsight.

(b) Prejudice?

Even assuming arguendo that counsel should have raised the point, the court finds no prejudice. The record shows:

  • Samia, through counsel, argued extensively that:
    • His conduct was limited to a “single crime,” and
    • His involvement was less extensive and sophisticated than that of Le Roux.
  • The district court explicitly acknowledged these arguments when weighing the § 3553(a) factors.

Thus, even if counsel had said “Samia was more of a contractor than a member,” there is no reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a meaningfully different sentence. The court thus concludes:

  • No objectively unreasonable performance; and
  • No reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Failing either prong of Strickland is fatal to an ineffective assistance claim, so the court rejects the argument.

3. Direct Appeal vs. § 2255

Finally, by citing Doe and Bodnar, the panel clarifies that:

  • Although the general approach is to reserve ineffective assistance claims for collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
  • It is permissible to decide such claims on direct appeal when:
    • The factual record is fully developed; and
    • The resolution is beyond any doubt or required in the interest of justice.

Here, the record contained enough information about Samia’s dealings with Le Roux and counsel’s arguments to resolve the claim immediately, without need for further fact‑finding. This promotes judicial efficiency and provides closure on the claim.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness

In modern federal sentencing appeals, two distinct questions are always asked:

  1. Procedural reasonableness: Did the sentencing judge properly:
    • Calculate the Guidelines range;
    • Consider the statutory sentencing factors in § 3553(a);
    • Rely on accurate facts;
    • Address the parties’ principal arguments; and
    • Give a minimally adequate explanation for the chosen sentence?
    If the court fails at any of these, that is a “procedural error.”
  2. Substantive reasonableness: Even if the procedure was sound, is the actual sentence so extreme that it cannot be justified by the facts and the law? This examines the bottom‑line severity in light of the whole record.

In Samia, the panel finds no procedural error and no substantive excess.

B. Abuse of Discretion and Plain Error

These are standards that define how much deference the appellate court gives to the trial judge:

  • Abuse of discretion:
    • The court will not reverse merely because it might have decided differently.
    • Reversal occurs only if the district court:
      • Relied on an incorrect legal standard;
      • Made clearly erroneous factual findings; or
      • Reached a decision outside the permissible range of outcomes.
  • Plain error:
    • Applies when the defendant failed to object in the district court.
    • The defendant must show:
      1. There was an error;
      2. The error was clear or obvious;
      3. The error affected his substantial rights; and
      4. The error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Plain error is much harder for a defendant to establish. In this case, the Second Circuit goes out of its way to say that Samia loses even under the more favorable abuse‑of‑discretion standard, making the plain‑error question moot in practical terms.

C. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and § 3553(a)(6)

Section 3553(a) sets the overarching criteria for federal sentencing, including:

  • The nature and circumstances of the offense;
  • The history and characteristics of the defendant;
  • The need for the sentence to:
    • Reflect the seriousness of the offense;
    • Promote respect for the law;
    • Provide just punishment;
    • Afford adequate deterrence;
    • Protect the public; and
    • Provide needed training, medical care, or correctional treatment;
  • The Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements;
  • The need to avoid unwarranted disparities (§ 3553(a)(6)); and
  • The need to provide restitution.

Section 3553(a)(6) specifically concerns disparities among “defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” The key point from Frias and this case:

  • The statute focuses on systemic disparities, not rigid equality between co‑defendants.
  • Judges may look at co‑defendant sentences as a guide, but are not bound to equalize them, especially where cooperation, perjury, or different charges justify different outcomes.

D. Cooperation, Plea Bargaining, and § 3553(e)

A common source of confusion is why a “worse” criminal can sometimes receive a lighter sentence. The answer often lies in:

  • Plea bargaining – Defendants who plead guilty often receive reductions in offense level for acceptance of responsibility, and may have more favorable charging agreements.
  • Cooperation – Under § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, defendants who substantially assist the government can receive major sentence reductions, even below statutory minimums.

In Samia, the district court concluded that:

  • Although Le Roux was more culpable as the leader,
  • His extensive cooperation and different plea posture justified a lower sentence than Samia’s.

The Second Circuit, citing Frye, treats this as an ordinary and legitimate result of the cooperation and plea bargaining system.

E. Harsh Conditions of Confinement as a Sentencing Factor

The district court recognized that Samia’s time in pretrial and post‑conviction facilities—MCC, MDC, and McCreary—was spent in “harsh and deplorable” conditions and expressly concluded that “time is harder” under such conditions.

What this means practically:

  • One day under especially restrictive or dangerously overcrowded conditions may be more punitive than a day in a less severe environment.
  • Judges may reduce the overall length of a sentence to account for the increased severity of the time already served.

The Second Circuit’s approval of this reasoning reinforces that:

  • Conditions of confinement are legitimate mitigating factors within the § 3553(a) framework; but
  • They do not compel a specific degree of reduction; the amount of weight is discretionary.

F. The Strickland Test Simplified

To win on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must clear two high bars:

  1. Deficient performance: Did the lawyer act in a manner that a reasonably competent lawyer would consider unacceptably poor? Courts presume lawyers act reasonably; tactical decisions, even if debatable, usually pass.
  2. Prejudice: Did the lawyer’s mistake probably change the outcome? Not just “possibly,” but “reasonably likely.”

In sentencing‑related claims (like Samia’s), the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the sentence would have been meaningfully lower. That is a difficult showing to make, especially where the judge has acknowledged and weighed the key issues anyway.

VI. Impact and Broader Significance

A. Limited Formal Precedential Effect—But Real Practical Influence

The order opens with the standard Second Circuit notice that:

  • Summary orders do not have precedential effect under Local Rule 32.1.1; but
  • They may be cited as persuasive authority under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.

Thus, United States v. Samia does not change the law in the formal, binding sense. However:

  • It illustrates how the Circuit will apply established principles in a real, fact‑bereft scenario; and
  • It sends a message to district courts and litigants about:
    • How harsh confinement and rehabilitation are to be treated;
    • How co‑defendant and cooperator disparities are justified; and
    • How hard it is to overturn below‑Guidelines sentences.

B. Reinforcement of Deference to Sentencing Judges

The decision strongly reinforces a trend in the Second Circuit:

  • Below‑Guidelines sentences are especially insulated from reversal, absent extreme circumstances.
  • Sentencing judges have broad latitude in how they:
    • Weigh aggravating and mitigating factors;
    • Compare co‑defendants and cooperators; and
    • Integrate “soft” factors like confinement conditions and rehabilitation.

For defense counsel, this underscores that:

  • The most critical work is at the sentencing hearing itself—building a deep record of mitigation and clear arguments about why a variance is warranted.
  • Once the judge has (1) recognized the correct Guidelines range, (2) acknowledged the major § 3553(a) factors, and (3) provided a reasoned explanation, the odds of success on appeal are low, particularly when the sentence is already below the Guidelines.

C. Clarifying the Role of Harsh Conditions and Rehabilitation

The opinion is part of a growing body of SDNY and Second Circuit authority recognizing:

  • “Harsh and deplorable” pretrial or post‑trial confinement can and should be factored into sentencing decisions; and
  • Long‑term rehabilitation and a spotless disciplinary record are meaningful mitigators.

However, Samia also confirms:

  • These considerations do not mechanically translate into a specific number of months off.
  • They may justify a substantial downward variance (as they did here, from life to 325 months), but the line‑drawing remains within the sentencing judge’s sound discretion.

D. Co‑Defendant Disparities, Cooperation, and Perjury

The decision also sends a clear message on co‑defendant disparities:

  • Cooperation and plea bargaining can lawfully lead to more lenient sentences for more culpable actors, without creating an “unwarranted disparity” under § 3553(a)(6).
  • Exercising the right to trial is not supposed to be punished; however, perjury at trial (as the judge found Samia committed) and a refusal to accept responsibility may properly justify a harsher sentence than a cooperating co‑defendant receives.
  • Recruiting others and being the triggerman are weighty aggravating factors, even when someone else designed the broader criminal scheme.

Litigators will likely cite Samia (as a persuasive summary order) in arguing:

  • For the government: that large disparities between a cooperator‑leader and a non‑cooperating subordinate can be justified; and
  • For the defense: that conditions of confinement and rehabilitation remain powerful, recognized bases for downward variances.

E. Ineffective Assistance at Sentencing: Narrow Room for Attack

Finally, Samia underscores how constrained ineffective assistance claims at sentencing are, especially when premised on:

  • Failure to contest characterizations of the defendant’s role that are broadly supported by the record; or
  • Alternative strategic choices in how to frame the client’s involvement.

Unless counsel’s omissions are extreme (e.g., failing to present obvious mitigating evidence, miscalculating the Guidelines, or ignoring critical legal issues), and there is a plausible, concrete showing of a different outcome, the Second Circuit is unlikely to find deficient performance or prejudice.

VII. Conclusion: Key Takeaways

United States v. Samia is formally a non‑precedential summary order, but it serves as a clear illustration of several enduring principles in federal sentencing and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence in the Second Circuit:

  1. High deference to sentencing judges. Appellate review of both procedural and substantive reasonableness is extremely deferential, especially when:
    • The Guidelines are correctly calculated;
    • The judge addresses the main § 3553(a) factors; and
    • The sentence is below the Guidelines range.
  2. Legitimacy of co‑defendant and cooperator disparities. Disparities between Samia’s sentence and the sentences of Le Roux and Stillwell do not violate § 3553(a)(6). Cooperation, different charges, and relative roles justify different sentencing outcomes, even when the mastermind receives a lighter term than a subordinate triggerman.
  3. Harsh confinement, rehabilitation, and health are real—but not controlling—mitigators. The district court’s decision to reduce Samia’s sentence from life to 325 months shows that these factors can lead to meaningful leniency. But they do not compel a specific reduction, nor do they insulate a defendant from a substantial custodial term when the underlying offense is especially grave.
  4. Below‑Guidelines sentences are especially safe on appeal. The court reiterates that it is “difficult” to deem a below‑Guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable. In practice, this places a heavy burden on any appellant seeking further reductions once the district court has already varied downward.
  5. Ineffective assistance at sentencing is hard to prove. Strategic choices about how to characterize a defendant’s association with a criminal organization, when the record supports the general narrative, are unlikely to be deemed objectively unreasonable. And absent a clear likelihood of a different sentence, prejudice will not be found.

In sum, United States v. Samia does not break new doctrinal ground, but it powerfully reaffirms the Second Circuit’s existing sentencing framework. It illustrates how a district court can:

  • Impose a very serious sentence for a brutal, mercenary killing;
  • Meaningfully account for harsh confinement and rehabilitation; and
  • Justify serious disparities between co‑defendants, including cooperators and masterminds, without running afoul of § 3553(a)(6).

For practitioners, the order underscores a practical reality: the battle over sentence length is overwhelmingly won—or lost—in the district court. Once a sentencing judge has thoroughly articulated a reasoned, individualized justification for a below‑Guidelines sentence, the Second Circuit will almost always leave that sentence undisturbed.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Comments