Supervised Release and Restitution in Criminal Sentencing: Analysis of United States v. Velez

Introduction

United States of America v. Jordan Velez is a significant appellate decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on December 19, 2024. The case involves Jordan Velez, the defendant-appellant, who was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Velez appealed his conviction and several components of his sentencing, including the term of supervised release, restitution order, and discrepancies between oral and written sentencing terms.

The key issues in this case revolve around the permissible scope of appeal following a guilty plea, the appropriate term of supervised release, the calculation and imposition of restitution, and the procedural integrity concerning discrepancies in sentencing documentation. The parties involved include Velez, who was represented by Andrew H. Freifeld, and the United States government, represented by Chand Edwards-Balfour and colleagues from the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit Court affirmed parts of the District Court's judgment while vacating and remanding others for further proceedings. Specifically:

Supervised Release Term: The appellate court found that the District Court erred in imposing a five-year term based on a misrepresentation by the government. It vacated the supervised release order and remanded the case for resentencing.
Restitution Order: Velez challenged the restitution amount imposed. The court reviewed the issue for plain error and concluded that there was no clear error, thus upholding the restitution order.
Discrepancy in Sentencing Terms: There was a conflict between the oral pronouncement of consecutive sentences and the written judgment reflecting concurrent terms. The court vacated the written judgment and remanded the case to align the written record with the oral pronouncement.

Additionally, the court addressed Velez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel but found it moot or not appropriately raised at this stage, directing such claims to be pursued through habeas corpus petitions if Velez chooses to do so.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several important precedents that guided its decision:

United States v. Burden, 860 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2017): Emphasized a narrow interpretation of appeal waivers in plea agreements, favoring appellate review when ambiguities exist.
United States v. Brown, 935 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2019) and United States v. Traficante, 966 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2020): Provided guidance on the discretionary nature of supervised release terms and the precedence of oral over written sentencing pronouncements, respectively.
United States v. Zangari, 677 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2012): Established the standard for reviewing sentencing errors under the plain error doctrine.
United States v. Gottesman, 122 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 1997): Differentiated scenarios where restitution authority stems from statutory provisions versus plea agreements.

Legal Reasoning

The appellate court meticulously dissected each of Velez’s challenges:

Appeal Waiver: The court interpreted the appeal waiver narrowly, allowing challenges to supervised release and restitution since these were not explicitly covered in the waiver.
Supervised Release Term: The government's misrepresentation regarding the mandatory nature of the supervised release term led the court to vacate this component, reinforcing the discretion courts hold under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559, 3583.
Restitution: Applying the plain error standard, the court found no clear or obvious error. It acknowledged the unresolved status of whether the MVRA applies to Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy but determined that the lack of consensus and Velez’s acquiescence (not withdrawing the plea) supported upholding the restitution order.
Discrepancy in Sentencing Terms: Citing precedent, the court prioritized the oral sentencing pronouncement, ordering the written judgment to reflect the intended consecutive terms as originally stated during sentencing.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court deemed Velez's claims either moot due to remand or improperly raised for consideration on direct appeal, recommending habeas corpus proceedings for such claims.

Impact

This judgment has several implications for future cases:

Clarification on Appeal Waivers: Reinforces the principle that ambiguities in plea agreements, especially regarding appeal waivers, are resolved in favor of allowing appellate review, thereby ensuring defendants retain the right to challenge significant sentencing components not explicitly waived.
Supervised Release Discretion: Highlights the importance of accurate representations by the government during sentencing and reaffirms the judiciary's discretion in imposing supervised release terms.
Restitution Calculations: Demonstrates the application of the plain error standard in restitution disputes, emphasizing the need for clear and consistent guidelines on applying the MVRA, especially for offenses with contested classifications.
Sentencing Documentation: Underscores the necessity for consistency between oral pronouncements and written judgments, ensuring procedural integrity and preventing sentencing discrepancies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal Waiver in Plea Agreements

An appeal waiver in a plea agreement is a provision where the defendant agrees not to appeal certain aspects of their conviction or sentencing. Courts interpret these waivers strictly, especially when they are vague. If a waiver isn't clear about what is being waived, courts tend to allow appeals to ensure the defendant's rights are protected.

Supervised Release

Supervised release is a period after incarceration during which a defendant must comply with certain conditions set by the court. It's intended to aid reintegration into society and prevent recidivism. The length of supervised release is at the judge's discretion unless specified by statute for certain offenses.

Restitution and the MVRA

Restitution involves compensating victims for their losses due to the defendant's criminal actions. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) requires courts to order restitution in specific cases, particularly for violent and property crimes, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay. If the MVRA doesn't apply, as in some cases, restitution may be discretionary, taking into account the defendant's financial situation.

Plain Error Standard

The plain error standard allows appellate courts to review a trial court's decision for obvious mistakes that affect fairness or result in a miscarriage of justice. However, the error must be clear or obvious and typically must have affected the outcome of the case.

Conclusion

The decision in United States v. Velez underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding defendants' rights while maintaining the integrity of the sentencing process. By permitting challenges to supervised release and restitution amidst ambiguous plea agreements, the court ensures that sentencing is both just and accurately reflects the agreed-upon terms. The affirmation of the restitution order, despite discrepancies, highlights the nuanced application of statutory mandates and the importance of the plain error standard in appellate review. Additionally, the ruling on the discrepancy between oral and written sentencing emphasizes the need for procedural consistency. Overall, this judgment contributes to the evolving landscape of criminal sentencing, balancing statutory obligations with discretionary judicial authority to serve justice effectively.