Judge Kimba Wood

Charged with participating in an international drug-trafficking and money laundering scheme, the court accepted Crisostomo’s guilty plea to conspiracy to launder money. In 2008, while preparing to try co-defendant Diaz, the government determined that Crisostomo violated his plea agreement. Diaz was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. The Second Circuit upheld Crisostomo’s below-guidelines 26 month sentence. Seeking 28 USC §2255 habeas relief vacating, setting aside or correcting sentence, Crisostomo repeated his claim that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because Diaz received a lesser sentence. The court denied relief. Citing United States v. Frias and United States v. Will, it noted that district courts may, but need not, consider sentencing disparities between co-defendants. Thus, the disparity between Crisostomo’s and Diaz’s sentences cannot serve as a basis for habeas relief. The court further rejected Crisostomo’s claim that it had acted vindictively. The record showed it did not seek sentence enhancements. Crisostomo also failed to prove either of Jones v. United States‘ requirements to show the government violated his fair trial right by relying on hearsay evidence.