United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020). The court did not err when it failed to issue a Statement of Reasons for an above-guideline sentence in a violation of supervised release case. The Judicial Conference and Sentencing Commission have not created an SOR form for revocations of supervised release, and the court clearly explained in open court its reasons for imposing an above-guideline sentence.
Nunez v. United States, 954 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Johnson v. United States “did not itself render the residual clause of the mandatory Career Offender Guideline vague, as required for Section 2255 purposes.”
United States v. Zapatero, 961 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2020). In ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence due to a retroactive Guidelines amendment, a court may not “adjust” a sentence under §5G1.3(b).