A U.S. appeals court signaled deep divisions on Thursday as judges weighed whether to overturn the prison sentence of hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, in a case that presents new legal questions about how courts factor in conduct tied to charges a defendant was acquitted of when deciding punishment.

A three-judge panel from the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Combs’ challenge to his 2025 conviction and the four-year, two-month sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian.

At the center of the hearing was the defense’s claim that Subramanian improperly relied on allegations that Combs had threatened former girlfriends when determining the sentence last October.

Combs, 56, was convicted by a jury in July on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. The decision followed a seven-week trial in Manhattan federal court that examined drug-fueled, multi-day sexual encounters — sometimes referred to as “Freak Offs” — involving two of his former girlfriends and male sex workers.

However, jurors cleared the Bad Boy Records founder of more serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering. Those accusations alleged that he coerced the two women — rhythm and blues singer Casandra Ventura and another identified in court as Jane — into participating in the encounters while he observed, masturbated and occasionally recorded them.

Combs, who is serving his sentence at a low-security federal facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey, did not attend the hearing.

Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro argued that the judge should not have considered claims that Combs threatened to release an explicit video of Ventura or to stop paying rent for Jane when deciding the sentence, because those claims were tied to charges the jury rejected.

"The jury did not authorize punishment for sex trafficking or racketeering conspiracy," Shapiro said.

Prosecutor Christy Slavik responded that the judge acted appropriately, arguing that the alleged threats were also relevant to the prostitution-related convictions.

"Judge Subramanian properly considered the aggravated manner in which the defendant carried out his Mann Act offenses," Slavik said, referring to the criminal statute that criminalizes transportation across state lines for the purposes of prostitution.

'JUST A SIDESHOW'

Judge M. Miller Baker appeared receptive to the defense’s position, pointing out that prosecutors had not heavily emphasized the Mann Act charges during the trial.

"It was just a sideshow," Baker said.

"Why shouldn't we hold you to what you argued to the jury?" Baker asked Slavik.

The other two judges on the panel, William Nardini and Sarah Merriam, seemed more doubtful of the defense’s claims, though they also pressed the government with detailed questions.

Nardini noted that the case presents issues that have yet to be addressed by any U.S. appeals court.

"This is an exceptionally difficult case," Nardini said.

Combs has admitted to abusing his former girlfriends but maintains that what he described as domestic violence incidents were unrelated to the sexual encounters at issue, which he says were consensual.

According to Bureau of Prisons records, he is scheduled for release on April 15, 2028.