United States v. McIntosh

── United States v. McIntosh ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General 23-6571-cr United States v. McIntosh 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 27th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges, MARY KAY LANTHIER, District Judge. * ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 23-6571-cr LOUIS MCINTOSH, AKA LOU D, AKA LOU DIAMOND, AKA G, Defendant-Appellant. ** ------------------------------------------------------------------ *Judge Mary Kay Lanthier, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. ** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.  FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: DONNA R. NEWMAN, Law Offices of Donna R. Newman, PA, New York, NY FOR APPELLEE: BENJAMIN KLEIN (Michael D. Maimin, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sidney H. Stein, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Defendant Louis McIntosh appeals from a May 3, 2023 amended judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stein, J.) sentencing him principally to a term of 300 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 2  Following a two-week jury trial in 2013, McIntosh was convicted on eleven counts, including Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, 1 Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, possessing firearms as a convicted felon and firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 2 He was originally sentenced principally to a term of 720 months’ imprisonment. After an appeal, the District Court resentenced him principally to a term of 300 months’ imprisonment. On appeal from that resentencing, McIntosh challenges his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. I. Procedural Reasonableness “We review a district court’s sentencing decision for procedural and su