FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-10200

v.  D.C. No.

ALPHONSO KINZAR CARTY, CR-03-01135-RGS

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 05-30120

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v.  CR-02-00079-12-

JUAN ANTONIO ZAVALA,

BLW

Defendant-Appellant. ORDER 

Filed August 25, 2006

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The court invites supplemental briefs by the parties

addressing some or all of the following questions on the role

of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in a district court’s

sentencing decision after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005):

1. Do we have jurisdiction to review appeals of

within-Guidelines range sentences?

2. If we have jurisdiction to review withinGuidelines range sentences, are such sentences

10645
entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, or

should we review such sentences no differently

than we review outside-Guidelines range sentences? If within-Guidelines range sentences are

entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, is

this presumption conclusive? Rebuttable? If

rebuttable, how can such a presumption be

rebutted? 

3. How should we review a post-Booker sentence

for reasonableness? Do we review only whether

the district court complied with Booker’s mandate to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors?

If so, is this review de novo? Do we independently review the sentence imposed for reasonableness? If so, how do we determine whether a

sentence is reasonable? What legal and factual

matters, if any, must we consider? Is this review

for abuse of discretion? Are factual findings

decided by the district court reviewed for clear

error, abuse of discretion, or on some other standard of review? Does it matter whether the findings are pertinent to the calculation of the

advisory Guidelines range or pertinent to the

application of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors?

4. What procedure is a district court required to

follow in sentencing a defendant within the

advisory Guidelines range? In particular, what

should be the district court’s duty, if any, to

articulate its consideration of the section 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors? 

5. If distinct from the procedure for withinGuidelines range sentences, what procedure is a

district court required to follow in sentencing a

10646 UNITED STATES v. CARTY
defendant above or below the advisory Guidelines range?

6. What weight does the advisory Guidelines range

have, in relation to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors? In conducting a sentencing proceeding,

may a district judge announce that he will

impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range unless the parties present compelling

reasons for imposing a sentence outside of that

range? On review, should we determine whether

the district court has given the advisory Guidelines range the appropriate weight, and if so,

how? 

Briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later than

September 15, 2006. Any person or entity wishing to file a

brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted

leave to do so pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a).

UNITED STATES v. CARTY 10647
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2006 Thomson/West.