What is this. I cant open it.
An appeal. Here's part of the document:
Page 1
13-2809-cr United States v. Blake 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 courts 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, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of October, two thousand fourteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, ROBERT D. SACK, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, - v - No. 13-2809-cr AKEEM CRUZ, AKA VYBE, AKA MELLO, Defendant, ROBERT BLAKE, AKA BANKS, AKA MIKE BLAKE, AKA BLADE, AKA BA, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________________________
Page 2
For Appellee: Winston M. Paes and Susan Corkery, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY For Defendant-Appellant: Lawrence D. Gerzog, New York, NY ________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED, in part, and REMANDED, in part, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Defendant-Appellant Robert Blake appeals from a judgment of conviction entered May 24, 2013, and sentence entered on July 15, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.), after Blake pleaded guilty to transportation of an individual for the purpose of prostitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2421. The district court sentenced Blake to 84 months of imprisonment, less 177 days already served, and three years of supervised release. As a condition of supervised release, the district court required Blake to comply with any sex offender registration requirements mandated by the law. Appellants Appx 164. We assume the parties familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, as well as with the issues on appeal. We review a district courts sentencing decision for reasonableness under an abuse-of- discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Employing that standard, we must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error . . . [and] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Id. Blake contends that the district court erred both procedurally and substantively. 2
Page 3
Blake first argues that the district court committed procedural error in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on Blakes false testimony provided in support of his request for a Fatico hearing. He raises four challenges to this enhancement. As his first challenge, Blake contends that the district court clearly erred in relying upon a statement made by Serina Merlo, his girlfriend, as evidence that his testimony in support of his request for a Fatico hearing was false.
