Opinion ID: 3039226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Calculation Error

Text: As the Supreme Court has stated, “the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark” in determining the appropriate sentence. Gall v. United States, 4 “Within 7 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). 5 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007); see also United States v. Goff, 501 F.3d 250, 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Because the Guidelines reflect the collected wisdom of various institutions, they deserve careful consideration in each case.... [T]hey cannot be ignored.”). Prior to, but consistent with Gall, this Court set forth a three-part process for determining a sentence. Under United States v. Gunter, district courts must begin with a correct Guidelines calculation and reason from that starting point to the appropriate sentence based on the facts of the individual case and the exercise of the District Court’s discretion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553. United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834, 838 n.4 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e require that the entirety of the Guidelines calculation be done correctly.”). Therefore, in accordance with the dictates of the Supreme Court and this Court, a district court errs when it fails to calculate the Guidelines range correctly or begins from an improper Guidelines range in determining the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Langford, --- F.3d --- (3d Cir. 2008) for a more extensive discussion of the requirement that District Courts start the sentencing process by properly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. In arriving at a within-the-Guidelines sentence of 71 months, the District Court applied the four-level enhancement for “otherwise us[ing]” a dangerous weapon during the course of a bank robbery pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D). On appeal, however, the Government concedes that the proper enhancement to be applied in this situation was the three-level enhancement for “brandish[ing] or possess[ing]” a dangerous weapon pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). Because this 6 Court agrees with the Government, we accept the Government’s concession and conclude that the District Court erred in its calculation and application of the Guidelines range. Given the error in calculating the appropriate Guidelines range, we must remand to the District Court for resentencing pursuant to the correctly calculated Guidelines range unless we determine the calculation error to be harmless.