2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-4-2008 

# U SA v . S evi ll a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1105

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S evi ll a" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 458. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/458P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 1105

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. EDU AR DO SEVI LLA a /k /a W ilfre d o G a rc ia a/k/ a M ex a/k/ a M exi co a/k/ a W i l fr edo B el t r am E DUAR DO S E VI L L A, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00363- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane
A r gued February5, 2008H onor abl e J os eph E. I r e n a s , Se n i o rD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe * D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B efore: M C K E E and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember4, 2008 J ames V
. W ade Feder al Publ i c D efe nder Fr edr i ck W

. U l r i ch ( A r gued) A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder O ffi ce of t he Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 100 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 306 H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T hom as A
. M ar i no U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney E r i c Pfi s t er er A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney T heodor e B
. Sm i t h ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 228 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 220 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el forA ppel l ee3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge W h e re , as h e re , a c o n v icte d c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t p re se n ts t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ta col or abl e ar gum ent for a l ow ers ent ence u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), a n d th e D istric t C o u rt f a ils to addr es s t hat ar gum ent , m us tthe def endantthen obj ecti n or der t o pr es erve t he ar gum ent for appea l ? W e concl ude t hat , under our pr ece dent , he nee d not

. A ccor di ngl y , w e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o m is s io n s in th is c a se n o t f o r p lain e rro r, b u t to det erm i ne w hethert he C our t pr oper l y exer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on by g iv in g m e a n in g f

u l c o n s id e ra tio n to th e re le v a n t f a c to rs . A ppl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, w e fi nd i ns uffi ci entevi dence for us t o di s cern w h e th e rth e Di s t r i ctC our tm eani ngful l ycons i der ed t w o of A ppel l ant E duar do Sevi l l a’ s ar gum ent s fo r a l ow er s ent ence . W e thus vaca t e Sevi l l a’s sen t ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng. I . Backg r ound S e v ill a p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d ist r ib u te, a n d to pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, coca i ne bas e. A ts ent enci ng t he G overnm entcont ended thatal t houg h Sevi l l a i ni t i al l yobs t ruct ed j us t i ce a ft erhi s arr est , he s ubs equent l ypr ovi ded s ubs t ant i alC ons i der i ng t he § 3553( a) fac t or s t o arri ve atan 1 ul t i m at e s ent ence corr es ponds t o s t ep thr ee of U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F
. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. Forr efe r ence , § 3 55 3(a) reads: F act ors t o be cons i dered i n i m posi ng a s ent ence.

— T he courts hal l i m pos e a s ent ence su f f icie n t, bu t n o t g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ry , to compl yw i t h t he purpos es setfor t h i n par agr aph ( 2) of t hi s s ubs ect i on. T he court , i n det erm i ni ng th e part i cularsent ence to be im po sed, shall co n side r— ( 1) th e natur e and ci rcum st ances o f t he o ffen se and the hi storyand cha r act er i s t i cs of the d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) t he nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed— ( A ) t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the o f f e n s e , t o p r o mo t e r e s p e c tf o rt h e l a w, and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe offe ns e; 4 assi st ance to t he G ov ernm ent, m aking i nap propri at e an increas e i n t he off ens e l evel under U
. S. S. G
. § 3C 1. 1 for obs t ruct i on. T he G overnm ental s o m oved fora d o w nw ar d departur e under U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 1. 1 bas ed on Sevi l l a’ s as s i s t ance . B ot h i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum and atthe s ent e n c i n g h e a r i n g , Se v i l l a r a i s e d s e v e r a l g r o u n d s f o ra l o w er se n ten c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). F o r in sta n c e , as to h is 1( B) to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( C) t o pr ot ect the publ i c fr om fur t her cr i m es of the def

endant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de t he defe ndant w i t h n ee ded e d u c a t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, or othercorr ect i onal t r eatm enti n the m o st eff ec ti v e m an n er; ( 3) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; ( 4) t he ki nds of sent ence and the s ent enci ng r ange estab li sh ed fo r— ( A ) the ap pli cable cat ego ryof o f f e n se comm i t t ed byt he ap pl i cabl e ca t egoryof defe nd ant as setforth in the g uidel i nes— ( i ) i s s u e d b yth e Se n t e n ci ng C om m i s s i o n pur s uantt o s ect i on 994( a)( 1) of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C o d e , s u b

jec t to a n ya m e n d m e n ts m ade t o s uch gui del i nes byactof C ongr es s ( r egar d l es s of w hether s uch amendm ent s have y ett o be i ncorpor at ed bythe Sent enci ng C o m m i ssi on i nto am end m ents iss u e d u n d e r se c tio n 9 9 4 (p ) o f tit le 28) ; and ( i i ) th a t, ex c e p t a s p ro v id e d in s ect i on 3742( g) , ar e i n eff ecton the dat e the def

endanti s s ent ence d; or ( B ) i n t he ca s e of a vi ol at i on of probat i on

5o r su p e rv ise d re lea se , the a p p lica b le gui del i nes orpol i cy st at ement s i s s ued by th e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n p u rsu a n t to s ect i on 994( a) ( 3) of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C o d e , tak in g int o acco u n t an ya m e n d m e n ts m ade t o s uch g u ide l i nes orpol i cy st a tem ents byactof C on gress (r egardl ess o f w hethersuch am end m ents hav e y etto b e i ncorpor at ed byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i nt o amendm ent s i s sued u n d er se cti o n 9 9 4 (p) o f ti tl e 2 8 ); ( 5) a n yp e rtin e n t p o licysta tem e n t— ( A ) i s s ued by t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uant t o s ect i on 994( a) ( 2) of t i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C ode, s ubj ectt o any amendm en ts m ad e to s uch pol i cy s t at ement by actof C ongr es s ( r egar dl es s of w hethers uch amendm ent s have y et t o be inco rpo rate d by t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i nt o amendm ent s i s s ued unders ect i on 994( p) of t i t l e 28) ; and ( B ) th a t , e x c e p ta s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i on 3742( g) , is in eff

ecton the dat e the d e f e n d a n t is se n ten c e d [ ;] ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defendant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w h o h a v e b e e n f

o u n d g u iltyo f s im ilar c o n d u c t; and ( 7) t h e n e e d t o p r o v i d e r e s t i tu t i o n t o a n yv i c t i ms

6of the off ens e. § 3 5 5 3 (a). 7 “ h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics ,” § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ), S e v ill a p o in ted to h is di ffi cul tch il d hood. Sent enci ng M emora ndum on B ehal f of D e f e n d a n t a t 4

– 5 , U

n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , N o. 1: 05- C R

- 00363 ( M
. D
. Pa. N ov. 22, 2006)

. H e furt herar gued thatthe fe d er al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ’ di s par at e tr eatm ent of cr ack a nd pow der c o c a in e c re a ted a b a se o f f e n se lev e l th a t d id n o t ac c u ra tely re f le c t h is c u lp a b ility. I

d. at7–10. T he D i stri ctC ou rtagre e d n ot t o incr ease the o ffen se lev e l f o r o b stru c tio n . It a lso d e c re a se d th e o f f e n se lev e l d u e to ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ityan d g ran ted th e G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance , tho u g h the C o u rt n o ted it w as reluc tant to d o so g iven S ev il la’s i ni t i al l y obs t ruct i ve behavi or . T he fi nal advi s oryG u ide l i nes r ange w as 70 t o 87 m ont hs , and the D i s t r i ctC o u rts ent ence d S e v ill a to 7 2 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t add re s s , h o w ev er, Se v il la’s ar gum ent s r el at i ng t o hi s chi l dhood or t he cr ack/pow dercoca i ne d is p a ri ty. See A pp. 81–85. R ather , the C our ts t at ed: S o h av ing co n side red all o f th e [ § ] 35 5 3 (a) fa ctors and the tr eatm entof t he co- defe ndant s i n the ca s e, I’ m goi ng t o acc ept t h e G o v ern m en t’ sTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. 2 § 3231. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 a n d 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. Ll oyd , 469 F. 3d 319, 321 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. T he G overnm ent ar gues thatw e l ack ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n to rev iew the e x tent o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d o w n w a r d d e p a rtu re . G o v e rn m e n t’s B r. 2 , 1 0

– 1 1 . T h is a rg u m e n t is irre lev a n t, ho w e v e r, b e c a u se S e v il la c lea rly chall eng es on l y t he D i stri ct C ou rt ’s fai l ure i n s et t in g h is sen tenc e to a d d ress h is a rgu m en ts fo r a low er se n tenc e u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Sevi l l a’ s B r . 2 ( fram ing i s s ue as “W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tFai l ed t o M eani ngful l yC ons i derthe R el evant Fact or s U nder Sect i on 3553( a) of t he Sent enci ng R eform A ctof 1 9 8 4 ”). 8 re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d se n ten c e th e d e f e n d a n t, as s um i ng a cr i m inal hi s t orycat egorythr ee a nd a g u ideline ra n g e b ase d o n the d o w n w ard d ep arture m o tio n o f

7 0 m o n th s to 8 7 m o n th s, I’m g o in g to sent ence h i m t o 7 2 m on t hs. A pp . 82
. S evil l a app eal s hi s sent ence to c h a l l eng e t hese om i ssi on s. 2
I I . St andard of R evi ew W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence for ab us e of d is c re tio n . U

n itedS ta tes v . G a ll , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). In t hi s r egar d, “ourr ol e i s t w o- fol d. ” U n itedStat es v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 217 (3d C i r . 2008)

. W e must“fi r s tens ur e thatthe9 di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err or ”— for i ns t ance , by“fa i l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or i m pr oper l y cal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, t r eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng to co n side r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac t or s , s el ect i ng a s ent ence bas ed on cl ear l yerr oneou s fac t s , orfai l i ng t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence— i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om t he G ui del i nes r ange. ” G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 ; W ise , 515 F
. 3 d at 21 7
. S ec o n d , “[ i] f w e d eterm ine th at th e d istri ct co u rt has comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cant pr ocedur al err or , w e then r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan abus eof- di s cr et i on s t andar d, r egar dl es s of w hetheri tfal l s w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. ” W

ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 8 ; se e a lso G a ll , 12 8 S. C t
. at597. B eca us e w e per cei ve a pr ocedur al err ort hatr equi r es r es e n t e n c i n g i n t h i s c a s e , we d o n o t a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e of subst anti ve reasonab l eness. O urC our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. G unt err equi r es di s t r i ctcour t s t o fol l ow a thr ee- s t ep s ent enci ng pr ocedur e: ( 1) C our t s m us tcont i nue t o cal cul at e a defe ndant ’ s G ui del i nes s ent ence pr eci s el yas t hey w ou ld ha ve bef

or e [ U ni t ed Stat e v. B ooker , 543 U
. S
. 2 2 0 (20 0 5 )]

. ( 2 ) I n d o i n g s o , t h e ymus tf o r ma l l yru l e o n t he m o ti o n s o f b o th p arti es a n d stat e o n the re co rd w hethert heyar e g ran ti ng a depa r tur e and how t hatdepartur e aff

ect s the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on,10 and t ake i nt o acc ountourC i r cui t ’ s pr e- B ooker cas e l aw , w hi ch cont i nues t o have a dvi s oryfor ce. (3 ) F in a lly , the ya re re q u ire d to e x e rc ise th e ir d isc re ti o n b yc o n sid e rin g th e re lev a n t § 3553( a) fa ctors i n s et t i ng t he sent ence the yi m po se r egar dl es s w hetheri tvar i es fr om the s ent ence c a lc u la te d u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s . 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 20 0 6 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons , quot at i on m arks , and br acke t s om i t t ed)

. A s not ed above , i ti s undi s put ed h e re th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m p lied w ith ste p s o n e a n d tw o : it cal cul at ed t h e G ui del i nes r ange a nd form al l yrul ed on the Go v e rn m e n t ’ s mo t i o n f

o ra d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU. S
. S
. G. § 5K 1. 1. T he part i es di s agr ee, how ever , w hetherthe D i s t r i ct C ou rtcom pli ed w i t h st ep thr ee i n li gh t of i t s fai l ure t o ad dress s om e of Sevi l l a’ s ar gum ent s fora l ow ers ent ence . A . W e R evi ew f

or M eani ngf

ul C onsi derat i on, N ot P l ai n E rror T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t, be c a u s e S e v ill a f a iled to obj ectt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s om i s s i ons atcl os e of s ent enci ng, w e m u s t re v ie w th o s e o m is s io n s f o r p la in e rr o r. SeeSever al of ours i s t er c ourt s of appe al s have a ppl i ed 3 pl ai n err orr evi ew t o unp res erved al l egat i ons t hatt he di s t r i ct c o u rt d id n o t e x p la in its d is c re tio n a ry se n te n c e a d e q u a te ly. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. P ens on , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. P el t i er , 5 0 5 F
. 3 d 3 8 9 , 3 9 1

– 9 4 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U n itedS ta tes v . V

illa fu e rte , 5 0 2 F
. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8

– 0 9 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U nited S tates v. R om ero , 4 9 1 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6

– 7 7 (1 0 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i lm an , 4 7 8 F
. 3 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 7 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U n itedS tates v. Sy lvester N o rm a n Kn o w s His G u n , III , 4 3 8 F .3 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 8 ( 9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). O th e r c o u rts s e e m to di s ag ree w i t h t hi s appr oach, how ever , r evi ew i ng for re a s o n a b le n e s s . See, e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . D a le , 498 F. 3d 604, 6 1 0 n .5 , 6 1 1

– 1 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U n itedS ta te s v . Sw e h la , 442 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (a rg u a b lyin c o n f lict w ith U ni t ed St at es v. B is tr up , 449 F. 3d 873, 883–84 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ( unpr es erved obj ect i on t o di s t r i ctcour t ’ s expl anat i on r evi ew ed f o r p lain e rro r)); Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 438 F. 3d 1272, 1274 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 11 G ov ernm ent’ s B r. 2– 3. W e dis agree. O ur C ou rt ’s e n banc 3 deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er p re c lu d e s th is a rg u m e n t. See 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 (20 0 7 ) ( en banc ). T h e re , th e d e f e n d a n t f a il e d to o b ject at sen tenc ing af

te r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n clus o ry e x p lan a tio n th a t it“ b e liev e s th a t 1 0 0 m o n th s is re a so n a b le in vi ew of t he cons i der at i ons of [18 U
. S. C
. §] 3553( a)

. ” I d. at561 ( al t er ati o n i n or i gi nal )

. W e nonethel es s r evi ew ed, and notfor p lain e rro r, th e D istric t Ju d g e ’s c o n c lu so rye x p lan a tio n to det erm i ne w hethers he gave m eaningful cons i der at i on t o t he rel evan tfact ors, becau se “[a]n object i on t o the re a sonab l eness12 of the fi nal s ent ence w i l l be pr es erved i f, dur i ng s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs , t he def

endantpr oper l y r ai s ed a mer i t or i ous fac tual or l egal i s s ue r el at i ng t o one orm or e of the fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a)

. ” Id

. a t 5 7 1 & n .1 1 . W e u lti m a tely concl uded the C our t ’ s expl anat i on w as i ns uffi ci ent , as i tw as
“ d e v o id o f

su b sta n tiv e c o n ten t an d o f f e r[ e d ] l itt le a ss ista n c e to an ap p el l at e tr i bunal

. ” Id

. a t5 7 1
. Acc o r d i n g l y , we r e ma n ded th e c a s e f

o r r e s e n te n c in g . Id

. at572. W e a re m in d f

u l o f c a s e s in o u r C o u rt th a t ar g u a b ly su g g e st th a t p lain e rro r re v iew a p p lies w h e re a d e f e n d a n t f a ils to o b je c t to a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e x p la n a tio n o f its s e n te n c e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. D r agon , 471 F. 3d 501, 505 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[The def

endant ] cl ai m s hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e under B ookerbeca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i der th e p a rsim o n yp ro v isio n o f 3 5 5 3 (a ), w h ich d ire c ts th e c o u rt to ‘i m p o se a sen tenc e su ff

ici en t, b u t n o t g rea ter th an n ec essa ry [,]’ t o com ply w i t h the purposes speci fi ed i n the st atute. B ecause [the def end an t] di d notr ai s e thi s obj ect i on att he s ent enci ng h e a rin g , w e re v iew h is c laim f o r p lain e rro r.”) ; Ll oyd , 469 F. 3d at325–26 ( s t at i ng t hatdefe ndant“d i d notadvanc e” i n the di s t r i ctcour thi s cont ent i on t hat t he di s t r i ct cour tw as obl i gat ed t o s t at e i t s r eas oni ng under § 3553( c) ( 1) , and conc l udi ng t hatt he d istric t co u rt’s e x p lan a tio n “ c o u ld n o t rise to th e lev e l o f p lain e rro r o r, in d e e d , an ye rro r a t all” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 462 F. 3d 273, 278–79 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng that , beca us e the d e f e n d a n t d id n o t o b

jec t b e f o re th e d istric t co u rt to its e x p lan a tio n o f

th e se n ten c e u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (c ), th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls13 w oul d “r evi ew t hi s cl ai m fo r pl ai n err or , ” and c oncl udi ng t hat t he di s t r i ctcour t“d id notpl ai nl yerr ” i n comm ent i ng on t he § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors). E ven as s um i ng t hos e dec i s i ons confl i ctw i t h o url at er deci s i on i n G r i er , h o wev e r , we mu s tf o l l o w G r i er . A s an en banc o p in io n , G r i eri s i n t e r v e n i n g a n d c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y. See Reich v. D

. M

. Sabi a C o. , 90 F. 3d 854, 858 ( 3d C i r . 1996) (“ A lth o u g h a p a n e l o f

th is c o u rt is b o u n d b y , a n d lac k s a u th o rity t o overrul e, a [pr ece dent i al ] deci s i on of a pr i or pane l, a panel m ayr eeva l uat e a pr ece denti n l i ghtof i nt erveni ng author i t yand am en d m en ts t o statu tes o r reg u lat ion s. ” (c it ati o n o m itted)). H er e, Sevi l l a s quar el y r ai s ed hi s di ffi cul t chi l dhood and t he cr ack/pow derdi s par i t y , bot h i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum an d at his sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . U n d er G r i er , t hen, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s f a ilu re to a d d re ss th o se iss u e s d id n o t re q u ire S e v ill a to r e- rai se them t o av ertplai n err or r eview of these om i ssi on s. B . M eani ngf

ul C onsi derat i on R evi ew

“ T o d e ter m in e if

th e [ d istric t] c o u r t a c te d re a so n a b lyin i m pos i ng t he r es ul t i ng s ent ence , w e mustfi r s tb e sati s fi ed the cour t exer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on by cons i der i ng t h e re l evant fac t or s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d C ir

. 2006)

. A s w e expl ai ned i n C ooper : T he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e the tr i al cour tgave14 m eaningfu l con si derat i on t o the § 35 53 (a) fact ors. T he courtneed not di s cus s everyar gum entm ade bya l i t i ganti f an a r gum ent is cl ear l yw i t hout m e ri t. Normus ta c o u r td i s c u s s a n d ma ke fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f the re c o rd m a k e s cle a r th e c o u rt to o k th e f a c to rs in to a c c o u n t in s e n te n c in g . . . . O n t he otherhand, a r ot e s t at ementof the § 3553( a) fac t or s s houl d nots uffi ce i f at s ent enci ng ei t her t he def endantort he pr os ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es “a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t( pr ovi ded i thas a f ac tual bas i s ) ” and the c o u rt f a ils to a d d re s s it. . . . O n t hi s i s s ue, w e di s agr ee w i t h t he d e c isio n o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C i r cui ti n U

n itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt, [426 F. 3d 1324, 1 3 2 9

– 3 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ),] w h e re th e c o u rt h e ld a d istric t c o u rt’s sta tem e n t th a t itc o n sid e re d b o th t he def endant ’ s ar gum ent s and the § 3553( a) fac t or s ats ent enci ng i s byi t s el f s ufficientfor B ookerpu rposes. Id

. a t 3 2 9 & n .6 (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o G r i er , 475 F. 3d at571–72 ( “The r ecor d m us tdis cl os e meani ngful con si derat i o n of the rel evan tst atutoryfact ors and t he ex erci se of i ndepende ntj udgm ent , bas ed on a w ei ghi ng of the r el ev antW e have hel d that“[a ] l t hough § 3553( a) does not 4 r equi r e di s t r i c tc o u rt s t o c o n s i d ers ent enci ng di s par i t yamong cod e f e n d a n ts , it a ls o d o e s n o t p ro h ib it th e m f ro m d o in g s o .” P arker , 462 F. 3d at277. Th e Su p r e me Cou r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n K i m br ough v U ni t ed 5 S ta te s , U
. S
. , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 5 5 8 , 5 7 5 (20 0 7 ) — an d o u r C o u rt ’s sequel deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 527 F. 3d 282, 286 (3d C i r. 20 08 ), as w el l as U ni t ed Stat es v. R i cks , 494 F. 3d 394, 402- 03 ( 3d C i r . 2007) — m ake c l earthatanydet erm i nat i on at 15 f a c to rs, in a rriv in g a t a f in a l se n ten c e .”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jack s on , 467 F. 3d 834, 842 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “M er el yr eci t i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , s ay i n g thatcouns el ’ s ar gum ent s have be en c o n sid e re d , an d th e n d e c lar in g a se n ten c e , are in su f f icie n t to w ith sta n d o u r re a so n a b len e ss re v iew .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 6

– 9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (s tatin g th a t d istric t co u rts “sh o u ld o b serv e the req u ir em en t to stat e ad eq u ate rea so n s fo r a se n ten c e o n th e re c o r d s o th a t th is c o u rt c a n e n g a g e in m ea n ing fu l app ell ate rev iew ”). I I I . The D i s t r i c t C our t ’ s Ex pl ana t i on Requi r e s R e m and H ere , the reco rd do es no t i n d icate tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt co n side red the § 3 5 5 3 (a) f a c to rs a t G unt er ’s s t ep thr ee. Al t h o u g h t h e Co u r tc o ns i de r e d S e v i l l a ’ s r o l e i n th e c r i me com pared t o thatof h i s co-conspir at ors, i tdid n ot address 4 Sevi l l a’ s col or abl e ar gum ent s r el at i ng t o hi s chi l dhood and the cr ack/pow derdi s par i t y other t han t o s ayt hati thad “c ons i der ed 5s te p th re e th a t th e c ra c k /p o w d e r c o c a in e d is p a ri ty is “ to o v a s t,” id

. at403, m us tgi ve r eas ons t hat r el at e t o t he part i cul ar d e f e n d a n ta n d n o tb e a c a t e g o r i c a l r e j e c t i o n o f

th a td i s p a r i t y. 16 al l of the [§] 3553( a) fac t or s . ” G iven t hat“a r ot e s t at ementof t he § 3 5 53( a) fac t or s s houl d nots uffi ce i f ats ent enci ng ei t her t he def endantort he pr o s ecut i on pr oper l yr ai s es a gr ound of r ecogni zed l egal m er i t( pr ovi ded i thas a fact ual bas i s ) and the cour tfai l s t o ad d r es s i t , ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329 ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n ma rk s o mi t t e d ) , t h e s e o mi s s i o n s r e q u i r e r e ma n d

. As i n G r i er , how ever , “[w ] e do nots ugges t that the or i gi nal s ent ence r efl ec ts anythi ng l es s than the s ound j udgm entof the D istric t Ju d g e , o r th a t th e f in a l se n ten c e sh o u ld n e c e ss a rily di ffe rfr om t he one pr evi ous l yi m pos ed. ” 475 F. 3d at572. I V . C oncl usi on For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e vacat e Sevi l l a’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.