Opinion ID: 40802
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the post-booker sentencing hearing

Text: 7 Following the Booker ruling, the sentencing was reconvened on February 28, 2005. Over the Government's objection, the district court ruled that Booker precluded it from using facts not admitted by Duhon to enhance his sentence, even under an advisory regime. The court calculated a Guideline range without using the enhancements for the age of the children or the number of images involved in the offense. This calculation resulted in an offense level of fourteen and an advisory term of imprisonment of fifteen to twenty-one months. The court announced, however, that it would not follow the Guidelines, characterizing them as totally discretionary. It stated that it would use the discretion granted by Booker to deviate from the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines and impose a sentence that . . . is appropriate based on the facts. 2 The court explained why it thought a lesser sentence was appropriate and sentenced Duhon to sixty months probation. 8 The Government reiterated its objection to the court's calculation of the Guideline range. The court responded that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of which advisory Guideline range was correct. The Government claims on appeal that the probationary sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable.