United States v. Lawrence

139 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 2, 2025 · No. 24-419

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion affirms the district court's 36-month prison sentence and three-year term of supervised release for Andrew Lawrence, who pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl. Lawrence challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing the court failed to address the Sentencing Guidelines' crack-to-powder cocaine disparity and that a reasonable-suspicion search condition lacked adequate justification. The appellate court rejected both arguments, holding that the district court acted within its discretion by applying the Guidelines as written and adopting the Pre-Sentence Report's recommendations for the supervised release condition.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
PARK; MENASHI; KAHN
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
June 2, 2025
Docket number
24-419
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence and a supervised‑release search condition.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentencing and supervised‑release conditions.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Andrew Lawrence, aka Snacks v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingsentencing guidelinessearch and seizureappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court’s imposition of a 36‑month imprisonment term was procedurally reasonable.
  2. Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable because of the Sentencing Guidelines’ crack‑powder disparity.
  3. Whether the supervised‑release condition permitting searches upon reasonable suspicion was procedurally reasonable.
  4. Whether that search condition was substantively unreasonable under constitutional standards.

Holdings

  1. The district court acted within its discretion; the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
  2. The condition is both procedurally and substantively reasonable; the district court’s adoption of the PSR recommendation satisfies the individualized assessment requirement.

Key quotations

The district court acted within its discretion in treating crack and powder cocaine offenses differently, and it did not need to address the parties’ policy arguments to the contrary. (at 1)
We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. (at 1)

Factual background

Lawrence sold six batches of drugs—including over five grams of crack cocaine, 14 grams of powder cocaine, and fentanyl—to a confidential government source. A search of his bedroom uncovered additional drugs, ammunition, and cash. He had three prior state convictions and a prior federal firearm conviction, and was on supervised release from the earlier federal case at the time of the offenses.

Procedural history

Lawrence pleaded guilty to six drug distribution counts in the Southern District of New York, received a 36‑month imprisonment term and a three‑year supervised‑release condition permitting searches upon reasonable suspicion. He appealed, arguing the district court failed to address the crack‑powder sentencing disparity and that the search condition lacked adequate justification.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…