United States v. Kennedy

── United States v. Kennedy ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General 25-1076 United States v. Kennedy 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 23rd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 25-1076 JOSE CASTRO, a.k.a. PAPO, ALEX MARTINEZ, a.k.a. A-ROD, KEVIN HENDERSON, a.k.a. MIDNIGHT, JOSHUA RICE, a.k.a. POP, CALVIN THOMAS, a.k.a. FAT CAT, EARL MERCER, a.k.a. BIG EARL, a.k.a. EARL THE PEARL, MARTY KERLEW, a.k.a. CURLEY, KEYON TARVER, JERMAINE NIBBS, a.k.a. LOLLIPOP, JAVIER OLIVERA, VICTOR MOORE, CHARLES WILLIAMS, RONALD BELL, ALFONSO LEE, a.k.a. BLACK, ANTHONY GREGG, a.k.a. BULL, AUSTIN HUGGINS, FRANK WRIGHT, KASHIEF RICE, JAMES PERKINS, a.k.a. JIMBO, JAIME MARTINEZ, CARLTON SANDERLIN, a.k.a. MURDER, a.k.a. CARLTON SANDERIN, RICHARDINE PERRY, a.k.a. NIC, CHRISTOPHE MILLS, LEWIS CLARKE, a.k.a. FROG, DANNY ZAITER, Defendants, JAMEL KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: Benjamin Gruenstein, Joseph B. Linfield, Martin Rather, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY. For Appellee: Lauren E. Phillips, Nathan Rehn, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. 2  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the April 15, 2025 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Jamel Kennedy appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to nine months’ imprisonment, to be followed by an additional five-year term of supervised release. Kennedy argues that the district court procedurally erred when it relied exclusively on the “seriousness” of the conduct underlying his violation of supervised release in imposing the new term of supervised release, since that consideration is impermissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). Kennedy Br. at 9, 12. 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. In reviewing a district court’s sentencing decision, we ordinarily apply a deferential “abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2020). But things change where, as here, a defendant raises an objection on appeal that he failed to raise below. In that circumstance, we review the