United States v. Gordon

── United States v. Gordon ── Case No.: 24-2758 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 31, 2026 Category: General 24-2758 United States v. Gordon UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 31st day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 24-2758 STEFAN BAGLEY, JR., TREMAYNE FERGUSON, a.k.a. TRE, JEFFREY CHARLESTON, a.k.a. J DOT, CHASE DRALLE, a.k.a. CHEVY, JAMAINE ADKINS, JR., a.k.a. G BANGER,  Defendants, ESKAVAIL GORDON, a.k.a. VAIL, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: David A. Moraghan, Smith Keefe Moraghan & Waterfall, LLC, Torrington, CT. For Appellee: John T. Pierpont, Jr., Conor M. Reardon, Assistant United States Attorneys, for David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Omar Antonio Williams, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the October 10, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Eskavail Gordon appeals his sentence of forty-eight months’ imprisonment following his plea of guilty to one count of receipt of a trafficked firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 933(a)(2) and (b). Gordon argues that his above-Guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; he also contends that the district court erred when it declined to specify whether his sentence should 2 run concurrently or consecutively to any future sentence imposed in connection with a possible violation of state probation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to resolve this appeal. I. Gordon’s Sentence was Procedurally and Substantively Reasonable. “We review a district court’s sentencing decision for procedural and substantive reasonableness, using a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Vargas, 961 F.3d 566, 570 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court commits procedural error where it fails to calculate the Guidelines range . . . , makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation, . . . treats the Guidelines as mandatory[,] . . . does not consider the [section] 3553(a) factors, . . . rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact[,] . . . fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence,” or fails to “include an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” United