A panel of federal appeals court judges raised concerns about Sean “Diddy” Combs’ four-year prison sentence for prostitution-related charges during oral arguments on Thursday. The judges, part of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, did not make an immediate ruling after a two-hour session. Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as exceptionally challenging, posing unique questions not only for their court but for federal courts nationwide.
Throughout the proceedings, there were discussions on whether the sentencing judge considered acquitted charges in determining Combs’ prison term. Combs’ attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, argued that he received the longest prison sentence ever for similar charges and criminal history. In response, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik contended that the sentence was below federal guidelines and aligned with similar convictions in the 2nd Circuit.
Combs, who is currently serving his sentence in a New Jersey federal prison, is contesting his conviction and the length of his imprisonment. Although acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, which carry life imprisonment, he was found guilty under the Mann Act for interstate prostitution activities. Judge Arun Subramanian, during Combs’ sentencing, emphasized that the court considers the nature of the offenses for which he was convicted, not the acquitted charges, but can still evaluate his background and conduct.
Combs, aged 56, has been incarcerated since his arrest in September 2024 and is scheduled for release in April 2028, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. His legal team is seeking a reversal of his conviction or a reduced sentence. The appeal hearing also addressed claims that evidence of fraud and coercion wrongly influenced the sentencing decision, despite the jury’s rejection of these aspects in the serious charges.
The trial shed light on Combs’ private life, revealing details of violence, drug use, and sexual activities termed “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” His defense team acknowledged potential violence but argued against stretching personal conduct into federal criminal offenses.
