A sentence that includes five years of supervised release is not an abuse of discretion, manifestly unjust or shocking to the conscience, even if the defendant's plea agreement included the defendant's agreement not to appeal, if the District Court capped the defendant's supervised release at four years. The defendant, Ernest Williamson, pled guilty to conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 28 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine base. Williamson waived his right to appeal any sentence not in excess of 188 months in prison, four years of supervised release and $150,000 in fines. The District Court sentenced Williamson to 151 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Williamson appealed to the 2nd Circuit and argued that five years of supervised release was unreasonable. "[T]he District Court," wrote the 2nd Circuit, "carefully considered Williamson's extensive recidivist history and made a considered decision that five years represented an appropriate term of supervised release based on the relevant factors set out in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)." The District Court's decision was not an abuse of discretion, manifestly unjust, shocking to the conscience or unreasonable. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, Kravitz, J. Richard Willstatter represented the defendant. David Fein, Tracy Lee Dayton and Sandra Glover represented the government.

VIEW FULL CASE