United States v. Trent

── United States v. Trent ── Case No.: 25-693-cr Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General 25-693-cr United States of America v. Trent 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 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 19th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, District Judge.* _____________________________________ United States of America, Appellee, v. No. 25-693-cr Tamien Trent, AKA Taim, * Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.  Defendant-Appellant. † _____________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: JONATHAN ROSENBERG, Rosenberg Law Firm, Brooklyn, NY. FOR APPELLEE: MARK E. MISOREK, Assistant United States Attorney (Dylan A. Stern, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Joseph Nocella, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brown, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Tamien Trent pled guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the Government. After Trent admitted to testifying falsely in a federal murder trial, the Government declined to move for a downward departure under § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines on his behalf. The district court † The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 2 sentenced Trent to fifteen years in prison, plus five years of supervised release. On appeal, Trent argues that the Government breached the cooperation agreement when it refused to move for a downward departure. He also argues that the district court violated his due process rights when it declined to hold an evidentiary hearing about the breach. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. * * * “We review a district court’s interpretation of a cooperation agreement de novo and examine its related findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Roe, 445 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 2006). Generally, when a defendant argues that the Government has breached a cooperation agreement by refusing to make a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), “we will look to see if the government has lived up to its end of the bargain and w