Opinion ID: 2974159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guideline Sentence

Text: Appellant argues that his sentence constituted plain error, because the district court sentenced him under the Guidelines that were mandatory prior to Booker. Respondent contends there was no plain error, because the court imposed an alternative sentence in the event the Guidelines were later determined by the Supreme Court to be advisory. The court first analyzes whether the district court erred in treating the Guidelines as mandatory, and then evaluates whether the sentence was reasonable under an advisory Guidelines regime.
In Booker, the Supreme Court found the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines to be unconstitutional. The Court further determined the Guidelines should be viewed as advisory in the context of the overall sentencing scheme found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 543 U.S. at 245. This court subsequently held that a district court commits plain error when it sentences a defendant “under a mandatory Guidelines regime that has now become advisory.” United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 526 (6th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, under such circumstances, we presume that substantial rights of the defendant are affected. However, under circumstances where the trial court has determined a sentence pursuant to the Guidelines, but has also treated the Guidelines as advisory and sentenced the defendant pursuant to the factors in § 3553(a), the sentencing does not implicate the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Chandler, 419 F.3d 484, 486 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Strbac, 129 Fed. Appx. 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2005). In the instant case, the district court explicitly stated that the sentence would be identical “using the guidelines as guidelines as distinguished from rules.” Furthermore, as discussed below in Section III.A.2., it is clear that this was no mere incantation; he actually did treat the Guidelines as advisory and fashioned an alternative sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors. Appellant argues that despite the district court’s statement on an identical sentence, resentencing is necessary because the sentence was “made at a time when the full import of the thenanticipated Booker decision was not known or appreciated.” This argument is not well-taken. The district judge anticipated the Booker decision by explicitly referencing Blakely and issuing an alternative sentence, pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Koch, No. 04-5477, 2004 WL 1870438 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2004). The Sixth Circuit has held such an alternative sentence does not run afoul of Booker, merely because it was imposed prior to that decision. See Strbac, 129 No. 04-2280 United States v. Caswell Page 4 Fed. Appx. at 238. Consequently, we find that the district court did not commit plain error by treating the Guidelines as mandatory in sentencing Defendant.1
Even though remand of this case is not required by Booker, we must still determine whether the district court committed plain error by imposing a sentence that was not reasonable. Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-65. A sentence is unreasonable if the district court fails to consider the applicable sentencing range under the Guidelines, or fails to consider the sentencing factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005). In the instant case, Caswell does not allege that the court failed to consider the applicable sentencing range2; however, Appellant does contend the court failed to explicitly consider certain sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) requires a district court to consider several factors, including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed-- (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;