## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2438 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . V IRGINIA C ART ER, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C R 308

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Judge .

____________ A RGUED A PRIL 7, 2008

— D ECIDED A UGUS T 19, 2008

____________
Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MSa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Vi rg i ni a Car terw as convi cted by j ury ofta x f ra ud , i n vi ol ati on o f 26 U
. S. C. § 7206 ( 1) , m oney l au nde r i ng, i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 95 6( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) , a nd en g ag i ngi n mone ta r y t r an sa ct i o ns kno wing tha t th e p r o per t y i n v o l v e d r e p r e s e n t s th e p r o c e e d s o fa n u n l a wful acti vi ty, i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C . § 19 57. The di str i ct cour t s entence d her to tw enty- f our m onths’ i m pri sonm ent,2 N o. 07

- 2438

The d is tr ic t c ourt had juri sdic ti on und er 18 U
. S. C. § 3231. 1 W e h a v e ju ri sd ic tio n u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 1 2 9 1
. Seeal so 1 8 U. S
. C. 2 § 37 4 2 (b ). a se nt en ce b el o w the a d vi so r y g ui del i ne s r an g e. The 1 Gov ernm en t ti m el y appea l ed th e se nt en ce . F o r the 2 r ea so ns s etf o r th in thi s o pi ni o n, we affi r m the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I

B AC KGR OUND Rober t Car terem bezz l ed m oneyfro m hi s i nsurance bus i ne ss ov ers ev er aly ea r s. I n 1 99 9 an d 2 00 0, hi s ac co unt a n tp r e p a r e d t a x r e t u r n s th a tr e p o r t e d a t o t a l i n c o me f r o m tho se y ea r s o fl es s th an $3 00 , 00 0. The se r etur ns und er - re port ed the Carte rs ’ i n com e bynear l y $ 1, 700, 000. H i s wife, Vi rg i ni a Car ter, si gned thos e j oi nt ta x re turns. I n 2 002, M s. Cart erfi l ed f ora divo rce fro m Robe rt
. H er d ivorce attorn ey w as u na w are th at m uc h of the cou p le’ s mo n e y h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h fr a u d , a n d h e r e c o mm en d ed that she att em p t to take c o n t r ol of the cou p le’ s l i qui d a ss et s i n o r d ert o s ec ur e th o se funds i n the pend i ng pro ceedi ngs. I n that yea r, M s. Cart ertr an sfe rred m o r e th an$ 3, 90 0, 00 0 i nt o ne w and pr ev i o us l y e xi st i ng bank acco unts be ar i ng o nl y hernam e. M s. Cart erw as charg ed w i th tw o counts ofta x f ra ud f orN o. 07

- 2438 3

26 U. S. C. § 72 06 ( 1) m ake s i t a f el ony t o “[ w] i l l ful l y m ake [ ] an d 3 subscr ibe[ ] any return, s tat em ent, or oth er docum ent, w hich contai ns o r i s ve r i fi e d b y a wr i t t e n de c l a r a t i ontha ti ti s m a de un de r the pe nal ti e s o fpe rj ur y, a nd whi c h he do e s n otbe l i e ve to b e t ru e a n d co rr ec t a s to ev er y m a te ri a l m a tt er .” 18 U .S. C
. § 19 56 states: 4 ( a) ( 1) W hoe ver, kno wing thatthe pr ope rty i nvol ved ina financi al tr ansac ti on repres ents the proceeds ofs om e f orm ofunlaw ful act ivity , cond ucts or at tem pts to c ond uct s uch a fi na nc i a l t r a ns a c t i onwhi c h i n f a c ti nv ol ve s the pr oc e e ds of spe cified u nla w ful activ ity

— ( A) ( i ) with the i nt en t to p ro m ot e the c ar ry i ng o n o f s pec i fi ed un l awful ac t i vi t y; or ( i i ) with i nt en tt o e nga ge i n c onduc tc ons t i t ut i ng a vi ol at i on ofs ec t i on 72 01 or 72 06 of the I nt er nal Reve nue Code of19 86 ; or ( B) knowi ng that the t ra ns ac t i on i s des i gne d i n whol e or in p art— ( i ) t o c onc ea l or di s gui s e the natur e, the loc at i on, the s ou r c e , the o wne r s hi p, o r the c on t r ol ofthe pr oc e e ds ofs pec i fi ed un l awful ac t i vi t y; or (co n tin u ed ...) und er - re port i ng heri nc om e in 199 9 a nd 20 00. S he was 3 also cha rged w ith tw en ty-three cou nt s of m one y l au nd eri ng, t wenty -tw o of whi chwentt o t r i al

. Ei g ht ee n o fthe m oneyl aund er i ng co unts thatwent to trial w er e ba sed on a l l ega ti ons that, fro m M ar ch 29 to Se ptem ber 18 , 20 02, M s. Cart erhad enga ged in m onet ar y t ra nsacti ons to di s g ui s e the p r o c e eds o ffr a ud , i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1956
. Th e othe r f ou r coun ts of m one y l au nd ering w e re

44 N o. 07

- 2438

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 ( i i ) t o a voi d a t ra ns ac t i on re por t i ng r equirem en t

u n de r S t a t e o r F e de r a l l a w, s hal l be s en t en c ed t o a fi ne ofno tm or e tha n $ 50 0, 00 0 o r t wic e the val ue ofthe pr ope rty i nvol ved i n the t ra ns ac t i on, w hiche ver i s greate r, or i m pris onm ent f or not m ore than tw en ty y ea rs , or b o th . F o r p u rp o se s o f th is p a r a g ra p h , a fi nan c i al t ra ns ac t i on s hal l be c ons i der ed t o be on e i nvol vi ng th e p ro ce ed s o fs p ec ifie d u n la w fu l a ct iv ity if it is p a rt o f a se t of parall el or dep endent tr ansac ti ons, any one ofw hich inv olv es the p ro ceed s of sp ecified un law ful activ ity, an d all ofwhi c h a re par tofa s i ngl e pl an or ar ra nge m en t
. Under 18 U. S. C. § 19 57, i ti s i l l eg al t o “ knowi ngl y e nga ge [ ] or 5 attem p t[] to e ng ag e in a m on etar y tran sactio n in crim ina lly d er iv ed p ro p er ty o f a v a lu e g re a te r t h a n $1 0 ,00 0 .” b as ed on alleg at ion s t h at M s . C ar te r h ad en ga ge d in fi nanci al tr ansact i ons w i th the pro ceeds offra ud betw een Apr i l 1 0 a nd A pri l 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 19 57
. M s. Ca r te r t es ti fi ed at he r t r i ala nd de ni ed th e

5 tax frau d and m one y lau nd ering all egation s. T he j ury f ound her guil ty on a l l co unts. A t s entenci ng, t h e di str i ct c ourthear d argum ents by M s. Cart erand the Gover nm ent r ega rdi ng the pre sente nce i nv es ti g at ion re po r t ( “P S R” ) a nd the c al cul at i o n o fthe adv i so r y g ui del i ne s r an g e. The c o ur t the n det er m i ne d the base o ff ense l eve l f orM s. Cart er ’ s off enses to be 29 , wh i ch i ncl ud ed a t w o- l eve l i ncre ase fo r obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce. The resul ti ng advi sor y guidel i nes s entenci ng r ange w as 87 to 10 8 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t. Af te r c o ns i der i ngthe factors set fort h in 18 U

. S. C
. § 3553(a), the d istri ct cou rtN o. 07

- 2438 5 i m po se d a s en te nc e o f2 4 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t. The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t a t e d: W el l, Idon’ t se e an y l ega l bas i s f ora departure , so th at leaves th e issues raised b y S e c tion 3553 i n d eterm i ni nga se nt en ce tha t i s pr o perunde r the f ac ts o fthe ca se , a nd no t g r ea te r tha n n ec es sa r y, t o s uppl y the r e a s o n s f o r th e p e n a l t i e s i n o u r c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m. There i s no questi on that the Fe derall aw was br oke n i n thi s ca se. A j ury so found that M rs . Cart erbr oke the l aw o n a num bero fo cca sio n s, Ithi nk the re was som ethi ng l i ke 30 counts. As I l o o k ed o ve r th e co unt s to whi chs he was f o und g u ilty , th e t ax co u n ts

— th e firs t y ea r, 19 99 , cer ta in ly I th ink th at a sp ou se w ho i s faced w ith a t a x retu rn th at is only $40,000 ou t of w ha ck p robab ly w ou ldn ’t no ti ce i t. Butthe ne xty ea r when they wento n the w i l d spend i ng spree i t k i nd o fdefi es re aso n that y o u wou l dn’ t l o o ka t th e r etur n a nd s ay, W ai t a m i nute, ther e i s s om ethi ng wrong here

. Ibel i eve thatatso m e poi nt M rs . Cart erm ust hav e known herhusband w as ste al i ng m oneybec ause th eir sp en d in g w en t fro m o n e l ev el t o a n en tir ely d iffer en t le ve l. There i s no q uesti on that w hen h erhusband w as on hi s way t o pr i so n, o r was abo utt o g o t o pr i so n, s he to o k i t u p o n h e r s e l f t o t r y a n d t a k e th i s mo n e y a nd m ak e i t as di ffi cul t as po ss ibl e f o r a nybo dy, i nc l udi ng cre dit or s a nd the gov er nm ent a nd the tax p eopl e, fro m col l ecting i t.6 N o. 07

- 2438 So , she vi ol ate d the l aw , and t h e l aw she vi ol ate d w as st ru c tu rin g a n d m on ey lau n d er in g. H a vin g s aid that, thi s i s o bvi ousl y no t a para dig m o fthe m oney l aund er i ng ca ses . The a r ti cl e i n the s en te nc i ngg ui del i ne s bythe Com m i ssi on i nd i cate s that Congre ss’ or i gi nal purpose was , i n the c o nt ex t of organi ze d c r i m e, t o pr ev en t p ro c ee d s from c rim es fro m b ein g us ed t o co m m it o th erc r i m es . Howev er, i t i s st i l la v i o l at i o n o fthe l a w, wh i c h s he di d. N ow, i n consi deri ng wh at an appropr i ate se ntence i n thi s ca se i s, i t doe s s eem to m e that i t wo uld be enti re l y i m properto gi ve her a s entence thatwas si m i l ar, o r c er ta i nl y hi g he r, tha n wha t he r husba nd got
. H erhusband w as the s ource of th e i l l ega l fund s. She did benefi t fro m them tho ugh, th er e i s no questi on about that. N ow , he got, Ibe liev e, 71 m on th s, w h ich is ce rt ain ly i n my j udg m en t ana ppr o pr i at e j udg m en t i n the f r au d c o nduc t i n whi chhe e ng ag ed i n. I thi nk, o n the o th erha nd, we do ha ve the a ge o fM r s. Ca r te r, s he i s 6 1, and that i s no t the ag e of yo u r nor m alcr i m i nal that com es bef or e the Courtf orse ntenci ng. Ido thi nktha t sh e pr o babl y did fr ea ko utwhens he f ound out that her husband w as basi cal l y o n hi s way to pr i so n a nd had s to l ena l l thi s m o ne y, a nd Ithi nks he acte d to a ce rt ai n ext en t o ut o fan a tte m pt to pro tect he r se l f, whi chIbel i ev e, i fI r ememberc o r r ec tl y, Ithi nk her divo rce l aw yersa i d that he had sugge ste d that that m one y be p ut i n h er nam e t h a t sh e w as aw are of, because Ithi nk the y were co ntem pla ti ng a divo rce .N o. 07

- 2438 7 N o w, th at i s no t an unus ua l re co m m en dat i o n. Ha v i n gn e v e r b e e n a ma t r i mo n i a l l a wy e r i ti s my u n d er st an d in g t h at m at rim on ial law ye rs alw ay s t ell th e w i f e , I fy o u c a n d o i t, g e t th e mo n e y i n y o u r n a me an d fi ghtabo uti t l at eri n c o ur t r athe r tha n l ety o ur hus ba nd t ak e i t an d y o u ha ve t o fi g htf o r i t. I t i s th e o l d, A bi r d i n the ha nd i s wor tht wo i n the b us h. So , he r ac tio n s a re n ot

— w h ile c e r t ain ly n ot lega l, w er e no t whol l y no t underst andabl e. I be liev e a lso th at sh e p ro b ab ly

— Ia m c er ta i n s he di dn’ t an ti ci pat e t he c o ns eque nc es o fhe r a ct i o ns . S he m ay ha ve kn ow n they w ere il legal, bu t certainly d idn ’t ex pe c t the m t o b e t o the e xt e nt whe r e s he wo uld be sta nd i ng her e pos sib ly su bj ecte d to a s entence o f 87 m onths. Ib el i ev e sh e al so d id no t r ec ei ve g o o d a dvi ce . The ad vic e w ou ld h av e b e e n to d on ’t d o a n yt h in g, th is m oneyi s t ai nted m oney . W hatev eradvi ce s he r ecei ved, that w asn’ t i t, and s he cer tai nl y di dn ’ t f ol l ow it
. Th e r e i s n o i nd i c a t i o n tha ts he ha d a ny thingt o do wi ththe fr au d. I t do es , ho wev er, s ee m t o me tha t sh e m us t ha ve b ee n a war e ats o m e po i nt th athe r husba nd w as doi ng so m ething i l l ega l bec ause ofthe vast am ount of m oney that al l of a sudd en cam e into hi s hands, buyi ng a pia no, a ri ng, etcet er a. H eracti ons w er e o vera re l ati vel y s hor t per i od of ti m e a nd the Gover nm ent di d rec over a goo d bi t o f the m oney . One ofthe com f or ti ng f eatures of the gui del i nes was th at thi s type o fquesti on di dn ’ t co m e up. I t was a8 N o. 07

- 2438 gu idelines cas e, ifyou d on’t fi nd a reason f or a dep arture , yo u sente nce. N ow th at w e have the autho ri ty and the di scr eti on to sentence, we have t o m ake a c on sci ous deci si on of w hat i s a f ai r sente nce, an d it i s no t a n eas y t i m e. H avi ng consi dered eve ry thi ng, i t see m s to m e t hat a 2 4 m onth s entence i s a pp ro pri ate i n thi s ca se.

. . . I th i nk th i s ca se i s a se r i o us o ne , a nd Ido n’ t th i nk that a 1 2 mo nth o r a 1 2 mo nth a nd a da y s e nt e nc e i s a pp ro pri ate
. Ithi nk under a l l the ci rcum sta nces I thi nk tha t when one consid er s the ag e o f

— and I don’ t m ean t o sugges t that s he i s a n ol d l ady, Iam c on si derabl y o l der than she i s, bu t I t h ink i t doe s r efl ect the s er i ousness ofthe off ense, I thi nk itd oes r efl ect the c hara cter i sti cs of the off ense, w hi ch i s no t y our paradi gm i nstance o f m o ne y l au nde r i ng, a nd Ithi nki t do es pr o te ctthe pu bl i c fro m furthercr i m es f ro m thi s defendant. I d on’ t an ti ci pat e he r b r ea k i ngthe l aw a g ain, a nd I thi nk that cer tai nl y a sente nce w i thi n th e g u i del i nes w ou ld h ave be en [ d ispa r a t e ] from her hu sba nd ’s sente nce. Se nt. Tr. at29

- 33.

II DI S C US S I ON W e r ev i ew a s en te nc e f o r pr o ce dur ale r r o r a nd s ubs ta ntiv e re as on ab len es s. S e eUni t e d S t at e s v . Om ole , 523 F. 3dN o. 07

- 2438 9 69 1, 6 96 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. W e th er ef or e be g i n b y e ns ur i ng th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t co m m i t an y s i gn ifi ca nt pr o c e du r a l e r r o r, “ s uc h a s f ai l i ngt o c a l c ul a t e ( o r i mpr o per l y c al cul ati ng) the Gu i del i nes ra nge, tr eat i ng the Guidel i nes a s m andator y, fai l i ng to consi der the [ sect i on] 35 53( a) f ac to r s, se l ec tinga s en te nc e ba se d o n c l ea r l y e r r o ne o us f ac ts , o r f ai l i ngt o a dequa te l y expl ain the c ho se n s en tence

— i ncl ud i ng an expla n at ion f orany devi ati on fro m the Gui del i nes r ange. ” G a ll v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 58 6, 59 7 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor don , 51 3 F
. 3d 659, 66 6 ( 7th C ir. 2008). I fwe de t e r mi ne the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s e nt e nc i ngde c i si on to be proce du ra l l y sound, w e then consi der the subst an ti ve r ea so nabl en es s o fthe s en te nc e. I n r ev i ewi ngthe d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n th e i s s u e o fr e a s o n a b l e n e s s , we e mpl o y the de f e r e nt i a l ab us e o fdi s cre ti o n s t a nd a r d. Gord on , 513 F.3d at66 6; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 41 5 F
. 3d 60 6, 6 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. The r efo r e, o ur“ ta sko n r ea so nabl eness r evi ew i s l i m i ted. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Wac howi ak, 49 6 F
. 3d 74 4, 7 54 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. W e m us t co ns i derthe s en ten c in g court ’ s e xplanat i on o fi ts re aso ns f ori m posi ng a parti cul arse ntence. That expla nati on need not be e xhausti ve bu t it m us t be a dequa te “ to a l l o w f o r mean i ng ful ap p ella te rev iew an d to p r o m o t e t h e p er c ep tio n of fair sente nci ng. ” O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d at 697, 69 8 ( quoti ng G all , 12 8 S. Ct. at 597)
. I fthe sente nce i m posed i s o utsi de the gui del i nes r ange, t h e d istr i ct c ourtm ust pro vi de a j usti fi cati on that expla i ns and s up port s the m agni tude ofthe var i ance. Id. ; se e also Gall , 12 8 S
. Ct. at59 5. I n r ev iew ing the s ubs ta nt i ve r ea so nabl en es s o fa s en ten c e tha tf a l l s o ut s i de the a dv i s o r y g ui de l i ne s r ange,10 N o. 07

- 2438

w e m u st giv e d u e d efe re n c e t o th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d et er m inati on th at t he se cti on 3 553( a) f acto rs , ta ken a s a wh ol e, ju st ified th e e x te n t o f th e v ar ian c e. G all , 12 8 S
. Ct. at59 7; Gord on , 5 13 F .3d a t 66 6. T h e fac t th at w e “m igh t re as on ab ly have concl ud ed that a di ff er ent s entence was appropri ate i s i nsuffi ci ent t o j usti fy r eve rs alo fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. ” G all , 128 S. Ct. at59 7. Our r ev iew m ust t ake i nto acco unt that a “ sente nci ng j ud ge i s i n a s u p er i orposi ti on t o fi nd f acts an d j udg e th ei r i m po r t unde r [ se ct i o n] 3 55 3( a) i n the i nd i vi du alcas e. The j ud ge see s a nd hear s th e e vi dence, m ake s c re dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons, has fullkno w l edge o f th e fa c ts an d ga in s in sig h ts n ot co n ve ye d b y t h e re c or d .” Id. ( quotati on o m i tte d). Because the di str i ct cour t has g r ea te r f ami l i ar i tyw i ththe cas e a nd the i ndi vi dualde f en dant and ther ef or e a n i nsti tuti onal advantage o veran a p p e l l a t e c o u r ti n ma k i n gs e n t e n c i n gd e t e r mi n a ti o n s , we m ust defer, abs ent a n abuse ofdi scr eti on, to i ts rul i ng. Id. ; Gord on , 51 3 F
. 3d at 666. I n ourco nsi derat i on o fthe sub st an ti ve re aso nabl eness o fa s en te nc e, i t i s i m po r ta ntt o b ea r i n mi nd tha t “[ t] he con cep t of su b s tan tive reason ablen ess con tem p lates ‘a ra nge, nota poi nt. ’ ” O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d at 698 ( ci tat i on o m i tt ed)

. “ Because the ‘ co nt o ur s o fs ubs ta nt i ve r ea so nabl eness r evi ew ar e s ti l l em er gi n g,’ w e cannot t ar geta fi xed poi nt atwh i ch a sente nce turns fro m r eas onabl e t o un r e a s o nab l e , o r v i c e v e r sa. ” Id. ( quoti ng Wac howi ak, 49 6 F.3d at 750 , 751). “A variant sen ten c e b a s ed on factors th at are parti cul ar i zed to the i nd i vi du aldefendant m ay be f o und r ea so nabl e, b utwe ar e war y o fdi ve r g en t se nte n c es ba se d on ch ar ac te ris tic s t h a t are co m m on to sim il ar l y si tuate d off enders, ” i d. , an d sen ten ces th at “d eviate[]N o. 07

- 2438 11 f ro m the gui del i nes s o l e l y on t he bas i s o fo ver sta ted m it i ga tin g fa c to rs or ‘n or m al in c id en ts ’ of th e o ffen se ,” Wac howi ak, 496 F.3 d at 754 (em p ha sis add ed ). Ev en i f a j ud ge ove rs tat es m i ti gat i ng f acto rs o r consi ders “nor m al incid e n t s ” of an offense , how ever, i f su ch a cons iderati on is “j ust o ne o fm any r eas ons the j ud ge gave f or[ hi s] b e l o w- g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , ” th e se nt e nc e wi l l b e a ffi r med

. Se ei d. H er e , the re i s a sizable differen ce bet w een the ad visory r an g e an d the s en te nc e i m posed on M s. Ca r te r . The sente nci ng co urt th er ef or e was r equi re d to enuncia te p ersu asive reason s, bas ed on th e fac tors in section 35 53(a), for t h e v ar ian c e. SeeGa ll, 128 S. C t. at 59 6-9 7; O m ole, 52 3 F. 3d a t 698. The Governm ent c onte nd s that s eve n aspect s of th e d istri ct court’s ex p lanation of th e varianc e w ere ei th erwea kori m per m i ss ibl e j us ti fi ca ti o ns f o r mit i g at i o n, orwe re f actual l y incor re ct. The Governm ent s ubm i ts that any j usti fi cati ons proper l y r el i ed on b y the di str i ct c ou rtw er e in su fficie n t t o s u p p or t t h e e x te n t o f th e v a r ian c e a n d th at th e s en te n c e t h er efo re is s u b st an tiv ely unr ea so nabl e. W e sh al l c o ns i dere ac h o fthe Go ve r nm ent’ s a rgum ents.

A. The Go ve r nm en t’ s fi r stt wo c o nt en ti o ns r el at e to the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s pri m ar y e xplanat i on f orthe sente nce va r i an ce . The d istr i ctc o ur t’ s st at ed ex pl an at i o n f o r the b el o w- g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e r e l i e d p r i ma r i l y o n t wo f acto r s : the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng, b a s e d in pa r to n M s. C art e r’s age, that she w as u nlikel y to com m it fut ure12 N o. 07

- 2438

M s . Car t er ’ s ag e atthe ti m e ofs en t en c i ng i s the r el eva nt 6 c o mpa r i s o n b e c a u s e th e S e n t e n c i n g C o mm i s s i o n Re p o r t, on w h i c h th e G o v e r n me n tr e l i e s , u s e s th e o ff e n d e r ’ s a g e a tth e t i me ofs en t en c i ng. Appendi x A t o the 20 06 Sen t en c i ng Co m m i s s i on R ep o rt, D escripti o n s of D ataf i l es, V ari ables , an d F ootnotes , a v a ilabl e ath tt p ://w w w .u ssc .g o v /A N N R P T /2 0 0 6 /a p p en d ix

_ A .p d f. A ccording to the Sentenc ing C om m is si on R eport, the m edian 7 ag e of tax offend ers in 20 06 w as 50 ye ars. A ccording t o the Sente ncing Com m is si on R eport, the m edian 8 ag e of m on ey lau nd erer s in 20 06 w as 40 ye ars. cri m es, and i ts concl usi on that the s er i ousness and char acter i sti c s o fhero ff ense w er e no t par t o fthe hear tl and of m one y-l au nd ering offen ses th at th e gu idelines w ere des i g ne d t o a ddr es s. S en t. Tr
. a t 32

- 33
. I n o urv i ew, the G overn m en t’s obj ection s to the d istri ct cou rt’s prim ary j u s t i fi c a t i o n f o r th e v a r i a n c e a r e , u n d e r th e c i r c u msta nces prese nted her e, witho ut m er i t. The Gover nm ent fi rs t s ubm i ts that M s. Cart er ’ s a ge w as a weak m i ti gat i ng f acto r because herag e, 61 ye ar s, d id n ot set he r ap art from th e u su al tax or m one y-l au nd eri ng o ff ender. It r el i es f orthi s pro posi ti on o n the 2006 6 Se n te n c in g C om m i s sio n R ep or t, w h ich fou n d th at 47 .7 perce nt o fta x off enders w er e ove r 50, and that, f or 7 p e r s o ns w hos e prim ary offen se involved m one y l au nd eri ng, 2 0. 4 per cent ofo ff en der s wer e o ve r 5 0. U. S
. S en 8 te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n, S o ur cebo o ko fF ede r alS en te nc i ng St at ist ics , T.6 (20 06 ), avai l ab l eathttp: //w w w . ussc. gov/ A N N R PT /2006/ta ble6.pd f. S ta ti st i ca l e vi den ce s uch as tha t pr o ff er ed bythe Go ve r nm en t ca n n o do ubtb e a he l pfult o o l t o a s en te nc i ngN o. 07

- 2438 13

W e al so not e that the s tat is ti cs regarding the age ofoff enders 9 whos e pri m ar y off en s e c at eg or y was m one y l aun deri ng m i ght b e a m or e accu rate b en ch m ark tha n th e statistics reg ard ing tho se w h o c o m m i t t e d ta x fr a u d . T h e R e p o r td e fi n e s a “ p r i m a r y o ffense c at eg or y” as “the off en s e c ode appl i c abl e t o the c oun tofc onvict ion with the hi ghests tatutory m axi m um . ” S eeApp e nd i x A, (co n tin u ed ...) j ud ge. Yet, ther e i s ce rt ai nl y no ev i dence thatCongr ess eve r i ntended that s uch evi dence r i gi dlycab i n th e di scre ti on o fthe dist rict cour t in exer ci si ng i ts du ty und er sect i on 3 553( a)
. I n any eve nt, the bre adth ofthe sta tist ical c at eg or ies t e n d er ed by th e G ov er n m en t c ou n se ls in favor of ex tre m e c au tion in rel ying on su ch raw nu m bers i n the del i cate ta sk ofse ntenci ng. Fo r i nstance , the Gove r nme nt no t e s tha t, i n 2 0 0 6 , a l mos t o ne - ha l f o ft a x o ff e nd

er s w er e ove r 50 ye ar s old

. T h is sta tis tic c on ve y s little proba ti ve i nfor m ati on, however, bec ause i t doe s no t provi de th e ag e di str ibuti on o fo ff enders i n the “ov er50 ” cate gor y. Fur ther m or e, i t incl ud es al l ty pes ofta x off enses , not j us t the pa rticular tax frau d com m itted b y M s. C arter, agai n wi th o utde sc r ibi ngthe di st r ibut i o n o fa g es a m o ng thos e di ff er ent t ax off enses . N ordoes the sta ti sti c co nvey an y o th err el ev an t m ea su r e o fthe da ta, l i k e th e m ea n, m edi an and m ode. Because ofthe cauti on with w hi ch w e a pp ro ach st ati sti calanal ysi s g ener al l y, and beca use of t h e p ar tic u lar ly im p re c is e n at u re of th is s ta tis tic in parti c u lar , we cannot concl ud e o n thi s ba si s a l one that the di str i ct c ourtcl early er re d w hen i t f ound that M s. Carte r w as not a t ax off ender ofthe age that“usual l y” com es bef or e the co urts
. 914 N o. 07

- 2438

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 avai l abl e athtt p ://w w w .u ssc .g o v /A N N R P T /2006/ app endix_ A
. pd f

. M s. Carter ’ s prim ary off ense cat egory w ould b e m oney l aun der i ng be c aus e i tc ar ri es the hi ghe r s tatu tor y m ax i m um te rm o f im p ri so n m en t. Compare 18 U. S. C. § 19 56 ( s et t i ng a st atutory m axi m um oftwenty yea rs ’ i m pris onm ent f or m oney la u n d er in g ), w i t h 26 U
. S. C. § 72 06 ( s et t i ng a s t atut or y m ax i m um of thre e y ear s’ im p ri so n m e n t f or tax frau d ). M s. C arte r, w ho se pri m ar y off en s e c at eg or y woul d be m one y l aund erin g, m i ght b e m or e acc u rate ly co m p are d to oth er o ffen d ers w ho se pri m a ry offe ns e a l s o was m oney laund eri ng than thos e off enders w hose worst of f ense w as the com parati vely l es se r off ense oftax f ra ud. Acc or di ng t o th e Gover nm en t ’ s s t at i s t i c s , f or pe rs ons w h o se p r i m a ry o ffen se in v o lv ed m o n ey la u n d er in g , on ly 20 .4 percentofoff enders were over 50. T he G overn m en t a d d iti ona ll y s ub m its that M s. C arter’s age w as an i m proper consi derat i on because she i s n ot ex ce pti o na l l y e lderly ori nfi r m . I t al so s ubmi ts tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t g i ve a s uffi ci en t ex pl an at i o n fo r why M s. Cart er ’ s a ge w as si gni fi cant. W e ca nnot a ccep t these conte n ti ons. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s di scussi on with counsel and i ts sta tem en t ofr eas ons m ake cl earthati t co nsi dered M s. Ca r te r ’ s ag e to b e a m i ti g at i ngf ac to r no t be ca us e sh e was i nfi r m , b utb ec au se he r a g e s ethe r a par t f r o m the averag e offen d er andm ad e itles s lik ely th at sh e w ou ld c o m m it t h es e c rim es ag ain
. See Se nt Tr. at30 ( “Ithi nk, o n th e o th er ha nd, we do ha ve th e ag e o f M r s. C arter, sh e i s 6 1, and that i s no t the ag e o fyo ur no rm alcr i m i nal that com es bef or e the Court f orse ntenci ng. ”) , 32 ( “Ithi nk tha t w hen one consi ders the a ge of

— and I don’ t m ean t o su ggest th at [M s. C arter] i s an old l ad y, . . . bu t
. . . Idon ’tN o. 07

- 2438 15 anti ci pate he r bre aki ng the l aw ag ain .”). The l i kel i hood ofr eci divi sm i s a pro per sente nci ng co nsi derat i on. 18 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3(a)( 2) ( C) ( “T he c o ur t, i n de te r m i ni ngthe par ti cul ars en te nc e to b e i m po se d, s ha ll c onsi der

. . . the n ee d for th e sen te n c e im p os ed

. . . to p ro te c t t h e p u b lic f ro m furt h er cr i m es ofthe defe nd ant. ”)
. I nd eed, we have he l d s pec i fi ca l l y that a di st r i ctc o ur t m aypr o per l y c o nsi der a defendant’s ag e a s it rel ate s t o the pos sibi l i ty of h er co m m itt in g c rim es in t h e fu tu re . S e e Un i t e d S t at e s v. H olt, 4 8 6 F
. 3 d 9 9 7, 1 0 0 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( a ffi r mi n ga b e l o wgu id elin es se n te n c e w h er e th e d ist ric t cou rt ’ s o n ly r e a s o n f o r the v a r i a nc e wa s th a tth e de f e nd a nt ’ s a g e ma de i t unl i kel y th at the defe nd ant a gai n w oul d be i nvol ved i n another vi ol ent c ri m e)
. W e ca nnot s ay that the di str i ct cou rt abuse d i ts disc re ti on wh en i t dete rm i ned that, base d on herag e a nd the tot al i ty ofthe circum sta nces, M s. Ca r te r was unl i k el y t o c o m m i t fur th erc r i m es i n the future. Consequentl y, the cour t di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on w hen i t concl ud ed that thi s f acto r counsel ed i n f avo r of a s entence si gni fi cantl y b el ow an advi sor y guidel i nes se n te n c e. Se ei d. (affi rm i ng a sente nce o f20 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, 62 m onths bel ow the guid eli nes r ange, w he re t he variance w as bas ed solel y on th e offen d er’s ag e); se e also O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d at 698. The Gover nm ent’ s s ec ond co ntenti on i s that the di strict court err e d w he n it det erm ined that M s. C arter’s o ff en se s wer e no t ty pi ca l mone y l au nde r i ngo ff en se s. The Gov ernm en t r el i es o n the f o l l o wi ngs ta te m en t bythe dist ri ct c ourt : S o , [ M s. Ca r te r ] v i o l at ed the law , a nd the l aw s he vi ol ate d w as str ucturi ng and m oneyl aund er i ng.16 N o. 07

- 2438 H avi ng sa i d thi s, thi s i s o bvi ou sly nota paradi gm o f the m oneyl aund er i ng ca ses . The a r ti cl e i n the s en te nc i ngg uidel i ne s bythe Com m i ssi on i nd i cate s that C ongr ess ’ o ri gi nal purpose was , i n the cont ex t o fo r g an i ze d c r i m e, t o pr ev en t proce eds fro m cr i m es being used to co m m i t o ther cri m es. Se nt. Tr. at29

- 30. T h e G ov er nm ent a l so re l i es on a nother st at ementtha t th e co ur t m ade a fte r i t determ i ne d a nd an no unc ed M s. Ca r te r ’ s sentenc e: “ Ithi nkunde r a l l the ci rcum sta nces . . . [ the s ente n c e] does r efl ect the s er i ousness ofthe off ense, Ithi nk itd oes r efl ect the c hara cter i sti cs ofthe o ff e ns e , wh i c h i s n o ty o urp a r a di g m i ns t a nc e o f m oneyl aund er i ng. ” Id. at32

- 33. The G ove rnm ent s ubm i ts that ther e a re thr ee types of m oneyl aund er i ng : s pend i ng, co nceal m ent a nd pro m otion. M s. C arter com m itted tw o of th ose typ es of l au nd ering, sp ecifi cally sp en d ing an d conc e alm en t. T he third ty p e, pro m oti on, r efer s t o m oneyl aund er i ng desi gned to prom ote an underl yi ng i l l ega l act i vi ty, f ori nstance , d ru g sm ug gli ng or racket eering. In th e G overn m en t’s vi ew , the district c ourt ’ s s tat em ent r efl ecte d an i m proper as se ss m en t th atM s. Ca r te r ’ s spe ndi nga nd c o nc ealm en t w er e l ess seri ous types ofm oneyl aund er i ng tha n prom oti on. The Governm ent’ s a rgum ent is t w of ol d: fi rs t, that th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s s tat ementr efl ec ts a fi ndi ngtha t co nce al m en t an d s pen di ng are l es s se r i o us tha n pr o m o ti o n, and seco nd , thatsuch a fi nd i ng i s i m pr op er bec ause Con g r es s i nt en ded to puni shi den ti ca l l y pr om o ti o n, co nc ea l m en t an d s pen di ngo ff en se s. The Go ve r nm en tN o. 07

- 2438 17

co nt en ds th atthe o nl y pr o per co ns i der at i o n i s “the e xt en t an d m agni tu de o fthe l au nde r i ng

— no t a no n- ex i st en t di s t i nc t i o n bet we e n pr o mot i o n, c o nc e a l men t, a nd s pe nd

i ng. ” Br. at27
. I t co ntends thatC ongr ess i ntended to pu ni sh identi cal l y prom oti on, conceal m ent and spend i ng, as de m o ns tr at ed b y the s ta tu to r y s ch eme, whi chs et s th e sam e m axi m um te rm o fi m pri sonm ent forpro m oti on an d co n c ea lm en t. See 18 U
. S. C. 1956
. I n sta ti ngtha tMs. Ca r t e r ’ s o ff e ns e wa s n o tthe ty pi c al case o fm oneyl aund er i ng, the dist ri ct c ourtr eferr ed to a 19 97 rep or t b y t h e Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion
. See S en tenci ng Pol i cy f orM oneyLaund er i ng Of f enses , U ni ted St at es Sen te n c in g C om m iss ion (Sep t. 18 , 199 7), ava il able at http: //w w w . ussc. gov/r_co ngre ss/LA U N DE R. PD F. That re p or t s ta te s t h at th e “ re lat ive ly h igh b a s e o ffen se lev els und erthe m oneyl aund er i ng g uidel i nes, ” i d. at 4, are “i nfl exible and arbi tr ar i l y dete rm i ned” w i thout connecti on “ to the s er i ousness o fthe defe nd ant’ s a ctualo ff ense conduct, ” i d. a t 9. The S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n c o ndu cted a m ult i

- yea r study o n m oneylaunderi ng se ntences an d de term ined that “m one y l au nd ering sen ten ces are bei ng i m posed f or. . . co nd uct that i s s u b st an ti al l y l ess ser i ous tha n t h e co nd uct co ntem pla ted wh en the m oney l aund er i ng g uidel i nes were fi rs t f or m ula ted. ” Id. a t 5. The Comm i ss i o n c o nc l ude d fr o m i ts i nv es ti g at i o n tha t th e sente nci ng str ucture w as gener ati ng d i spro port i onate pen al ti es f o r v i o l at i o ns o ffede r all aw s in tha t se r i o us m i sco nd uct was not bei ng punis hed m or e s eve re l y than l ess se ri ous o ff enses and that the s tr ucture shoul d be r ec al ibr at ed to r efl ec t di r ec tl y the s eriousne ss o fthe u n d er lyin g off en se . Id. a t1 0
. T he Co mm i s s i o n no t e d a18 N o. 07

- 2438 par ti cul arc o nc ern r eg ar d ing o ff en se s i nv o l vingthe co nc ea l m en t o f th e pr o ce eds o f dr ug tr affi ck i ng, the prom oti on o ffurthercr i m i nal co nd uct , a n d the use off or ei gn ba nks, i nter nati onaltr ansact i ons oro ther so p h ist ica te d form s o f m on ey lau n d er in g. Se ei d. a t 1 0 & n. 22. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co nsi derat i on o fwh ether M s. Ca r te r ’s offe ns e was a ty pi ca l mone y l au nde r i ng off ense w as w i thi n the bounds ofper m i ssibl e inter preta
ti on. A se ntenci ng co urt i s r equi re d to consi der “the need f orthe sente nce i m posed .

. . to r efl ect th e se riousness o f the o ff e ns e , t o p r o mot e r e s pe c tf o r th e l a w, an d t o p r o v i de j us t p un ishm en t for the offen se.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(2) (A ). The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed thatM s. Cart er ’ s o ff ense was no t i n th e he ar tl an d o f o ff en se s th at th e Sent encing Com m i ssi on i ntended to add re ss w hen i t s et the gu idel i n e s . I t s c o n c l u s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mm i ss i o n’ s po l i cys ta te m en t. The G o ve r nm en t’ s co nt en tion t h at p rom otional and conc ealm en t offen ses carry th e sa m e m ax i m um t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t i s co r r ec t, b ut unavai l i ng. The di str i ct c ourt, i n its anal ysi s, di d not com p are w orst-case offend ers w ho sim p ly ha d un d ertak en di ff er ent types ofm oneyl aund er i ng; i nstea d, it c on c lu d ed th at M s. C ar te r’s offe n se , w h en vie w ed in l i ght o fal l the ci rcum sta nces, was not ofthe so rt that had caused the gui del i nes t o be s et at the l eve l atwh i ch they had been s et. The dist ric t c ourtdi d not abuse i ts di sc r et i o n whe n i t se l ec te d a s en te nc e th at“ r efl ec t[ ed] the se r i o us ne ss o f ” an d “ pr o vi de[ d] j us t puni sh m en t f o r the offe n se ” a c tu ally co m m itt ed by M s. C ar te r. Se ei d. ; see also U nited Sta tes v. Wa lters , 87F. 3d 663, 67 2 ( 5th Ci r. 19 96)N o. 07

- 2438 19 ( ho l di ngtha t a se nt en ce r edu ct i o n was notdi spr o po r ti o nat e i n l i g h t o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a t th e gu idelines o v e r s tated the serious ne ss of the offen d er’s actu al m one y-l au nd ering con d uc t).

B. I n additi on t o the Gove rnm ent’ s fi rs t t w o obj ecti ons, w hi ch r el ate to the distric t cour t’ s pri m ar y e xplanat i on ofthe sente nce, the Gover nm ent m ak es seve ra l o ther ar gum ents w i th r espectto the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s g ener al sente nci ng co nsi derat i ons. T he Go vern m en t’s third c o n t e nt ion i s tha t M s. C arter’s re lian c e o n h er d ivo rc e a tt or n ey ’s a d vic e w as n ot a so lid gr ound fo r m i ti gat i ng herse ntence b ec au se the a tto rney d i d not a dvis e herto pro tecti l l ega l l y- obt ained funds. Ats e nt e nc i ng, the di s t r i c tc o ur ts t a t e d: I d o th i n k th a t s h e p r o b a b l y d i d f r e a k o u t when sh e f ound out that her husband w as basi cal l y on h i s w ay to pr i so n . . . an d I th i nks he a ct ed to a c er ta i n e xt en t o ut ofan a tte m pt to pro tecther sel f

. . . Ithi nk herdi vor ce l aw yersa i d that he had sugg est ed that that m oney be put i n hernam e. . . . S o, heract i ons . . . were not w hol l y no t underst andabl e. S e nt
. T r . a t3 0

- 3 1
. T he c o ur ta l s o s a i d: Ibel i eve she did notr ec eive go od advi ce. The advi ce w oul d hav e been to don’t do anythi ng, thi s m on ey is tai nted m oney . W hatev eradvi ce s he rec ei ved, that w asn’ t i t, and she cer tai nl y di dn ’ t f ol l ow it
. Se nt. Tr. at31
.20 N o. 07

- 2438

The di s t ri c tc our ts t at ed: “I be l i eve s he di d not rece iv e good 10 ad v ice. Th e ad v ice w ou ld ha v e b een to d on ’ t d o a ny thin g , this (co n tin u ed ...) T he Go vern m en t con ten d s t h at th e d ivorce attorn ey’s advi ce i s n ot a m i ti gat i ng f acto r because the att or ney was no t ful l y i nf o r m ed. Th e di vo r ce a tt o r ne y t es ti fi ed th athe to ld M s . C ar te r on M ar c h 28 , 200 2, “t o m ak e c er ta in th at you prese rv e the l i quidi ty f oras l ong as you can becau se I d on’ t want the spouse to i n any w ay tr y t o tak e the m oney s and fre eze her out or sta rv e her out. ” Tr
. at68 3, 68 9; s e eal s o i d. a t 69 0 ( “Q. S o y o u t o l d he r t o pr o te ct[ th e l i quid] as set s, r i ght? A
. Yes. ”) . H e also te sti fi ed that M s. C ar te r d id n ot te ll hi m t h at so m e o f th e c ou p le’s liqu id as se ts w er e t h e pr oc ee d s of R ob er t’s frau d

. Id. at 690 (“[I ]t ne ve r c ame u p abo uta ny ty pe o ff r au d what so ev er . ”)
. The att or ney fu rt h er st ate d that he would not have advi sed h erto tr ansferfund s that were the pr oce eds o ffra ud

. Id. at 690- 91. The Gover nm ent c onte nd s that the “di str i ct c ourtdi d not consi der that [ M s. Cart er ’ s] di vor ce a tto rneyte sti fi ed that, i f[ sh e] ha d t o l d hi m abou t the s o ur ce o fthe mone y, he n ev er w ou ld h av e s u gg es te d t h a t s h e ‘p ro te c t’ (n ot ab ly diff er ent fro m ‘ concea l ’ ) herasset s. ” A pp el l ant’ s Br. at28
. The distr ict court sta ted thatheract i ons “w er e no t w hol l y no t underst andabl e, ” Tr
. at31 , bas ed in parto n the c onver sat i ons th at M s. Cart erhad w i th herat torney. N o th i ngi n the r ec o r d s uggests tha t th e co ur t m i sc o nstru ed herat torney’ s t est i m ony orhi s a dvic e t o her. N or do es the r ec o r d s ug gesttha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t putundu e w ei ght o n thi s co nsi derat i on. T he di str i ct c ourtact ed 10N o. 07

- 2438 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 m oney is t a in ted m oney. W hatever advice she rec ei ved , that w asn’ t i t, and she c ert ainl y d idn’ t foll ow i t. ” Sent
. Tr. at 31. wi th i n the pe r m i ss ibl e boun d s o fdi sc r et i o n i n c o nsi deri ng ev i dence ofthe eff ect the a dvic e had o n M s. Cart er as a f ac to r a ff ec ting“ th e na tu r e an d c i r cumst an ce s o fthe offe n se ” s h e c om m itt ed

. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(1)
. The Gover nm ent’ s f ourth conte nti on i s that the di str i ct cour t’ s co m pari son ofM s. Cart er ’ s s entence with her husband’s sente nce was i m perm i ssibl e be cause M s. C ar te r w as n ot sim ilar ly sit u at ed to h er h u sb an d . H er e, it pr es um ab l y r el i es o n the f o l l o wi ngs tate m en t bythe dist ri ct c ourt : N ow, i n consi deri ng wh at an appropr i ate se ntence i n thi s ca se i s, i t doe s s eem to m e that i t would be enti re l y i m properto gi ve her a s entence thatwas si m i l ar, or cer tai nl y higher, than w hat herhusband got

. H erhusba nd was the s o ur ce o fthe i l l eg alfunds

. S he did benefi t fro m them tho ugh, ther e i s no questi on about that. S en t. Tr
. a t 30
. Aft era nno unc i ngM s. Ca r te r ’ s se nt en ce , the di st r i ctc o ur t al so s ta te d: “ Idon’t an ti ci pat e he r b r ea k i ng th e l aw a g ain, a nd Ithi nktha t ce r tainly a s en te nc i ng w i th in the gui del i nes would have bee n [ dispar ate ] fro m her husband’s sente nce. ” Id. at33
. The Gover nm ent c onte nd s that M s. Cart eri s no t s im il ar l y s i tu at ed to he r husba nd b ec au se , unl i k e hi m , s he did notpl ead gui l ty but i nste ad w ent t o tr i al

. I t a l so22 N o. 07

- 2438 conte nd s that, unl i ke h er h usband w ho pl eaded gui l ty, Ms
. C a r t e r l i e d o n th e s t a n d a n d r e c e i v e d a t wo- po i nt en ha nc em en t for obstru ction of j us tice. A t trial, how ever, th e G overn m en t agreed that Rob ert’s offenses w ere m uch w or se than M s. Carte r’ s off enses . Tr. at 1042 (“Iam not eve n h ere t o t e ll [ you that ] sh e is w or[s] e t[h ]an R ob er t C ar te r. In fa c t s h e is n ot . Ro b er t C ar te r is m uc h w orse tha n sh e is. ”). The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s co nsi derat i on o fthi s f actor w as p ro p er . SeeGa ll , 1 28 S
. Ct
. a t 60 0 ( ho l di ngtha t a se nte n c in g c ou rtm ay p r o p e rly co n sid er “t h e n ee d to av oid un wa r r a nt e d sim ila rities am ong other co-con sp irators who wer e no t sim il ar l y s i tu at ed” )
. Addi ti o na l l y, the cour t d i d not put unre aso nabl e wei ght o n the com parati ve s en te nc es o fthe t wo; the cour t di d no t ba se the ex te ntofthe v ar i an ce fr o m the g ui del i ne s so l el y o n the diff er ences between M s. Cart erand Rober t. Se eWac howi ak, 496 F. 3d at 748. N or w as i t unaw ar e that som e asp ects o fM s. Ca r te r ’ s ci r cumst an ces and o ff en se s wer e di ff er en t f ro m

— and possibl y wors e than

— Ro be rt’s s i tu at i o n; the cour t knew that, i n contr astwith Ro ber t, M s. Cart erhad not accepte d a pl ea agr eem ent and had been f ound gui l ty by a jur y. I n sum , the cour t r eas onabl y c om pared M s. Carte r’ s co nd uct and ci rcum sta nces to Rober t’ s co nd uct an d circ u m st an c es . C om pare G all , 128 S. Ct. at 600 ( “[I]t is perfectly c l ea r tha t th e Di st r i ctJ udg e co ns i der ed

. . . the ne e d t o a v o i d u nwa r r a nt e d sim ila rities am ong o ther [defen d an ts] w ho w ere not sim il arly si tu ated

. ”). W e ca nnot s ay th at it s consi derat i on o fthi s f acto r w as er ro neous.N o. 07

- 2438 23

O n e t r a n s a c t i o n o c c u r r e d o u t s i d e th a tt i me fr a me , o n S e p t e m- 11 ber 18, 2002 , and involved a wire t ransfer offund s f rom an ac c ounti n M s . Car t er ’ s na m e t o o ne he l d j oi nt l y by h er an d he r h us ba nd

. The Gover nm ent’ s f ourth o bj ecti on r el ate s t o the di str ict co urt’ s s tat em ent that M s. Cart er“fre ake d out when she found ou t th at herhusband w as basi cal l y o n hi s way to p ris on ,” an d th at h er “a c ti on s w er e o ve r a re lat ive ly sh o r t per i o d o f ti m e. ” S en t. Tr
. at 30 , 32
. The Gov ernm en t co nt en ds th atthi s co nc l us i o n was fa ctua l l y e r r o ne o us beca use M s. Cart erco m m i tte d tax fra ud o n her19 99 and 2000 re turns, al though herco n c eal m ent m oney l aund er i ng o ccurr ed pri m ar i l y ove r the for ty days be tw een M ar ch 29 and M ay 7, 2002
. Tr. at57 7, 59 4- 602. I t s ubm i ts 11 th at th is f acto r w as, at m ost, a very w eak m iti gating factor. W e fi r stno te tha t th e Gov ernm en t i ts el fem pha si ze d the sh o r t ti m e f r ame i n whi ch M s. Ca r te r ’ s m o ne y l au nde r i ng occu rre d. Tr
. a t 10 10 ( “T hi s ch ar t an d the i ndi ct m en t su m m ar i ze 2 4 tr an sa ct i o ns in 60 da y s. I fy o u t ak e o ut th e S e p te m b er tra n sa c tio n, i t is j u st 30 d ay s.” ). A fair r e a d i ng o fth e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r e ma r k s w o u l d a s s u me th ati ts c o ns i der at i o n o fthi s f ac to r w as li m i te d t o the m oneyla und er i ng o ff enses wh i ch, as we have no ted ea r l ier , w er e m os t o p er at ive in s et tin g t h e o ffen se lev el. The cri m i nal act i vity o fwh i ch M s. Cart erwas convi cted d id inv olv e fra u d u len t t ax ac tiv ity in 1 99 9 a n d 20 00 , in ad d itio nto h e r m on ey lau n d er in g off en se s in 20 02 . I t is doubtful, however, thatthe cour t would have co nsi dered th i s f ac to r t o b e a su bs ta nt i alo ne i n d eter m i ni ngthe24 N o. 07

- 2438 sente nce f ortho se off enses . To the e x te n t that the di str ict cour t e rr ed w hen i t co ncl ud ed that M s. Cart er ’ s t ax f r au d o ff en se s, a s o ppo se d t o the mone y l au nde r i ng off enses , o ccurr ed ove r a r el ati vely s hor t per i od ofti m e, th e o th er r ea so ns o ff er ed by th e di st r i ct co ur t f or the se nten ce i m po se d a ss ur e us tha t th i s er r o r do es no t al o ne re n d er th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s co n c lu sio n u n re as on ab le. See Wac howi ak, 496 F. 3d at 754 ( hol ding that eve n if a j u dge ov er st a t e s m itig at in g fa c to rs or c on sid er s “ n or m al in c id en ts ” ofan o ff ense, i fthe consi derat i on i s “j ust o ne o f m any r eas ons the j ud ge gav e f or[ hi s] bel ow-gui del i nes se n te n c e,” th e s en te n c e w ill be a ffirm ed ); see also U nited St at e s v. Che r ry, 4 87F
. 3d 36 6, 3 72 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ho l di ng th at a “la rg e d ow n w ar d va ria n c e” w as n ot u n re as on ab le “in li gh t of th e othe r reasons offe r ed by the district cou rt f or the sente nce i m posed, ” eve n w here the cour t e rroneousl y c onclu ded thatthe defe nd ant’ s cr i m es had occu rred i n a sh ort pe riod of ti m e). The Gover nm ent’ s fi fth co nten tio n is that the di str i ct cour t i m p erm i ssibl y c onsi dered M s. Cart er ’ s e xpectati on th at she w oul d not g et a l engthyse ntence. I t poi nts t o a sta tem ent b y the di str i ct c ourtatse ntenci ng: I be liev e a lso th at sh e p ro b ab ly

— Ia m c er tain sh e di dn’ t an ti ci pat e th e co ns eque nc es o fhe r a ct i o ns . S he m ay h av e k n ow n th ey w er e illeg al, bu t c er ta in ly d id n ’t e x p e c t t h em to be th e e x te n t w h er e s h e w ou ld be s tandi ng he re poss ibl y s ubj ecte d to a s entence o f 87 m onths. S e nt
. T r . a t3 1
. T he Go v e r nme ntc o nt e nd s tha tthi s c o ns i der ati on defi es one goal ofse cti on 3 553( a)

— pr o m o ting r e s p e c tf o r th e l a w.N o. 07

- 2438 25 T h e G ov er n m en t’s arg u m en t p u t s m o r e w eig h t o n th is c o mme n tth a n i to u g h tt o h a v e t o b e a r . T h e s t a t ement w as m ad e d uri n g t he cou rt’s discu ssion of M s. C arter’s deci si on t o ensure thatthe fund s fro m the m ar ri age be in h erna m e r athe r tha n h erhusba nd’ s. I n c o nt ex t, the distr i ctc o ur t was e xpr es singi ts b el i eftha t, a l th o ug h s he knew that s uch unil ate ra l a c tio n w i th r espectto ta i nted fund s was i l l ega l, she did notapp re c iate the ser i ousness ofthe off ense. Tr. at32
. Fi nal l y, the Gover nm ent c onte nd s that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed beca use i ts re aso ns fo r the r educed sentence di d no t appl y t o the t ax fr au d c o nv i ct i o ns , whi cha l o ne m er i t ed a lon ge r se n te n c e t h an M s. C ar te r re c eiv ed . In thi s r espect, the Gover nm ent r el i es on i ts conte nti on that Ms
. C a r t e r ’ s a g e wa s s t a n d a r d f o r t a x o ff e n d er s. A s we have sta ted earl i er, thi s co ntenti on i s without m er i t. M or eov er , the dist ri ct c o ur t ’ s de t e r mi na t i on t hat M s. C ar te r w as u n like ly to co m m i t t h es e c rim es ag ain a p p l i e s t o th e t a x fr au d co n v i c t i o n s ; c o n s e q u e n t l y, we c a n n o te x p e c tth a tth e d i s t r i c t co u r tw o u l d h a v e i mpo se d a hi g h s en te nc e e ven i fthe se c r i m es ha d b ee n the onl y o nes c harg ed. The co u rt s tated that the s entence w as suffi ci ent t o “pro tec t the publ i c fro m furthercr i m es f ro m this d efendant, ” and that the court did not “anti ci pate her bre aki ng the l aw ag ai n. ” S ent. Tr. a t 32- 33. These f ac to r s wer e pr o per l y c o ns i der ed bythe di st r i ctc o ur t an d re fl ect the di str i ct cou rt’ s s er i ous c onsi derat i on o fse cti on 3553 (a), i nc lud ing its stated pu rp ose of “i m p os[i ng ] a sente nce s uffi ci ent, b u t n ot gr eat erthan necess ar y . . . to re fl ect the s er iou sn ess o fthe off ense, to pro m ote r espect for th e law , and to provid e j us t pu nish m en t f or the of-26 N o. 07

- 2438 f ense. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 553( a) ( 2) ( A )
. F u rtherm or e, the Gover n m ent’ s a rgum ents f ai l to ta ke acco unt ofthe f act that M s. Cart erwas sente nced to 36 m onths’ superv i sed r el eas e i n additi on t o her sente nce o f2 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent. N otab ly, the Su p rem e C ou rt recen tly held th at a term ofsu p er vi sed r el eas e invol ves a “ substa nti alr est ri cti on offre edom

. ” G all , 128 S. Ct
. at 595 (qu otation om itted ).

C. I n sum , the sente nci ng j ud ge’ s a rt i cul ate d reas ons f or th e varian c e from the ad visory guid eli ne s range assu re u s t h at th e s en te n c in g p ro c es s w a s a r ea so n ed on e. See O m ole, 523 F.3d at 698

. Th e cou rt’s j us tifications are s u ffi c i e n t t o e x p l a i n th e e x t e n t o f th e v a r i a n c e f r o m t he advi sor y guidel i nes r ange . The Gove rnm ent’ s a rgum ents that the s entence i s unre aso nable giv e too l i ttl e e ff ect to t h e c ong ressiona l com m an d that a sente nc ing cou rt i m pose a s entence “s ufficie n t, but notgr eat erthan necessary,” to com p ly w ith sect ion 3553(a)(2). Th e issu e here i s whethe r, a s i t per ta i ns t o th is d efen dan t an d the off enses she com m i tte d, the s entence co m port s with th e pur po se s o fs ec ti o n 3 55 3(a) ( 2) ( A). I n i m po singthe 24 -m on th se n te n c e , th e d ist ric t c ou rtst re ss ed rep ea te d ly the s er i ousness o f M s. Cart er ’ s o ff ense and consi dered he r a s ani ndi vi duale nt i tl ed to a n i ndi vi dual i ze d s en te n c e. See Wac howi ak, 49 6 F
. 3d at 748, 75 4. I t co ncl ud ed tha tMs. Ca r t e r ’ s i nd i v i du a l c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s wa r r a nt e d a sente nce s i gni fi cantl y below the advi sor y guidel i nes r a ng e . We c a nn o ts a y tha tthe c o ur tab us e d i t s di s cre ti on w hen i t co ncl ud ed that thi s s entence r eas onabl y r efl ectsN o. 07

- 2438 27 th e se r i o us ne ss o fthe o ff en se , pr om ote s r es pec t f o r the law an d p r o v i d es j u st p u n ish m en t fo r th e o ffen se . Se ei d. ; 18 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) (A)
. The r ec o r d m ak es c l ea r tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtdi d not s el ect the s entence arbi tr ar ily, bas e the s e nt e nc e o n i mpe r mi s s ib l e f a c t o r s , f a i l t o c o ns i der p er tin e n t se c tio n 35 53 (a) fa c to rs or giv e a n u n re as on ab le am ount o fweight to an y pertinent f acto r. I ts expla nati on f o ri t s s e n t e n c e wa s s u ffi c i e n tt o a l l o w f o r me a n i n g ful ap p ella te rev iew an d to p ro m ot e t h e p e r c ep tio n of fair se nt en ci nga nd i ts reaso ni nga dequa te l y j us ti fi ed th e extent ofthe var i ance fro m the advi sor y gu id elines ra nge. See O m ole, 523 F.3d at69 7; se e also Gall , 12 8 S
. Ct. at 597. W e m i ght have adhered to the gui del i nes o r i m posed a s om ew hat h arsherse ntence had w e be en si tti ng as d ist ric t j ud ges . Se e G all , 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. a t5 9 7
. Ou r r e v i ew i s no t de no vo, however

. Our a u th or i ty i s s i m plyto d e t e r mi n e i fth e s e n t e n c e i s l e g a l a n d , i n t h e c i r c u mstan ces of the ca se , reason able in l ight of the statu tory m andate co ntai ned i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. Giv en tho se l i m i tat i ons on ou r author i ty, the sente nce o fthe dist ri ct c o ur tmus ts t a nd

.
Conclusi on Acco r di ng l y, f o r th e reaso ns s etf o r thi n thi s o pi ni o n, w e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. A FFI RMED

8- 19- 08