A panel of federal appeals court judges raised concerns about the length of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ approximately four-year prison sentence for charges related to prostitution during oral arguments on Thursday. The three-judge panel at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan did not make an immediate decision after listening to two hours of arguments.
Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as “exceptionally difficult” and noted that it posed novel questions not only for their court but for federal courts nationwide. Throughout the proceedings, the judges questioned whether the sentencing judge had considered acquitted charges in determining the prison term for Combs, which his lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, argued was the most severe punishment ever imposed for such charges and a similar criminal history.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik, representing the government, contested Shapiro’s assertion, stating that the four-year, two-month sentence given to Combs was below the federal sentencing guidelines and aligned with comparable convictions in the 2nd Circuit.
Combs, who is currently serving his sentence in a federal prison in New Jersey, is appealing his conviction and more than four-year prison term. Last July, he was found guilty under the federal Mann Act, which prohibits the interstate transportation of individuals for prostitution, but he was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges that carried the potential for a life sentence.
During sentencing in October, Judge Arun Subramanian emphasized that the court was sentencing Combs based on the offenses he was convicted of, not those he was acquitted of. The judge cited legal statutes that allowed consideration of the nature of the offense and the defendant’s characteristics without restriction.
Combs, aged 56, has been incarcerated since his arrest in September 2024. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has set his release date for April 2028. His legal team is seeking to overturn his conviction or secure a reduced sentence upon review.
The courtroom discussions on Thursday did not touch upon Combs’ lawyers’ First Amendment argument that his sexual encounters involving filming with male sex workers should be protected as “amateur pornography.” However, considerable debate centered on the defense’s contention that Subramanian wrongly factored in evidence of fraud and coercion that the jury had dismissed when clearing Combs of the most serious charges.
Combs’ trial in the previous year exposed details of his private life, revealing testimonies of violence, drug use, and sexual activities termed as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” While Combs did not testify during the trial, his defense team acknowledged his capacity for violence but argued against prosecutors’ attempts to criminalize his personal life.
The court proceedings did not address claims made by Combs’ attorneys that his conviction should be overturned based on First Amendment grounds protecting his sexual activities with male sex workers. The defense focused on arguing against the consideration of evidence related to fraud and coercion by Judge Subramanian, which they claimed the jury had rejected when acquitting Combs of the most severe charges.