Opinion ID: 1385188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Unreasonableness of Imposing the Same Sentence

Text: Brown also contends that the district court's resentencing him to the same 84-month sentence it had imposed originally was substantively unreasonable on the ground that the judge had specifically stated at the initial sentencing that he would have sentenced [Brown] to 70 months if he had the choice (Brown brief on appeal at 10). We reject this contention because the court did not make that statement. What the district court said at the original sentencing was that it would have imposed a shorter prison term if Brown had not had such an extensive criminal record: The problem that I have with the defendant's position is that he is in a criminal category history four. It is not that this is his first contact with the criminal justice system. If he were not a criminal category history four, notwithstanding Sentencing Guidelines as related by the government, I would sentence him to 70 months. (2004 S.Tr. at 20-21.) Plainly the court did not state that it would have imposed the shorter sentence if only the Guidelines were not mandatory; to the contrary, the court said that if Brown had not had such an extensive criminal record, it would have sentenced him more leniently notwithstanding [the] Sentencing Guidelines. Nothing about Brown's criminal record changed between the original sentencing and the sentencing on remand. And the court's decisions in sentencing and resentencing Brown reveal that the court took seriously its obligation to consider, inter alia, the history and characteristics of the defendant, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).