A three-judge Second Circuit panel heard oral argument April 9 in Sean Combs' appeal of his 50-month federal prison sentence, with Combs' attorneys contending that the sentencing judge improperly relied on conduct for which the jury returned a not-guilty verdict [1][2]. The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench.
Combs was convicted on two counts under the Mann Act, federal statutes prohibiting the interstate transportation of persons for prostitution-related purposes [1]. At sentencing, District Judge Arun Subramanian imposed a 50-month term [2]. Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro argued before the panel that Judge Subramanian elevated the sentence by factoring in coercive conduct the jury had specifically rejected, a practice she contended is now barred under recently amended U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines that prohibit judges from considering acquitted conduct when calculating a sentence [1][2]. The government defended the sentence, arguing the district court acted within its lawful discretion.
The panel, which included Judges William Nardini and M. Miller Baker, pressed both sides during argument and appeared divided [1][2]. Combs' attorneys advanced a second, distinct claim: that certain of the conduct underlying the charges was constitutionally protected expression under the First Amendment [2]. The panel did not signal which arguments, if any, it found persuasive, and questions from the bench cut in multiple directions.
The appeal arrives at a moment of unsettled law. The U.S. Sentencing Commission amended its guidelines to restrict acquitted-conduct enhancements, but courts have not uniformly resolved how that amendment applies to sentences imposed before or during the transition period [1]. The Second Circuit's ruling will carry weight beyond this case, given the circuit's geographic scope and the frequency with which acquitted-conduct questions arise in complex federal prosecutions. If the panel vacates the sentence, the matter returns to Judge Subramanian for resentencing under whatever instructions the court provides. A decision is not expected immediately.