Opinion ID: 43447
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Carballo argues that his ten-month consecutive sentence for failure to appear was not sufficiently individualized to avoid excessive sentencing disparity 2 and does not accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, he challenges the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines, asserting that his failure to appear was accounted for through a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, and imposing a consecutive sentence results in impermissible double counting.1 He also claims that the sentence for his stolen goods offense would have been “dramatically” less under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), since he received enhancements for amount of loss and possession of a weapon, which were neither admitted by him nor determined by a jury.