Opinion ID: 1196919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cost of Incarceration

Text: Finally, Pepper contends the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the cost of incarceration as a basis for varying downward. In the Sentencing Memorandum, the district court cited as support for its decision our prior opinions in United States v. Collins, No. 98-3765, 1999 WL 1143677, at  (8th Cir. Dec.2, 1999) (unpublished) (determining, the economic costs of incarcerating [the defendant] is not a factor which the Court should have considered as a basis for departure), and United States v. Wong, 127 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.1997) (explaining, [t]he decision whether tax dollars should be used to pay for lengthy sentences is a congressional determination, not one to be made by federal courts[,] and [t]he Sentencing Guidelines do not mention the expenses of imprisonment as a factor a court may use in deciding whether to depart from the Guidelines). The district court then opined, even if the cost of incarceration were an appropriate consideration under Eighth Circuit precedent, the district court did not believe the cost of incarceration fits with any of the factors listed for imposing sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We agree with the reasoning of the district court, and this view was shared by another panel of our court in a recent opinion. See United States v. Molina, 563 F.3d 676, 678 (8th Cir.2009) (citations omitted) (Although sentencing courts are required to consider the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the cost of imprisonment is not among them. Thus, we doubt that sentencing courts have the authority to impose lesser sentences based on the cost of imprisonment.). See also United States v. Tapia-Romero, 523 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding, § 3553(a) neither requires, nor allows, a court to consider the cost of imprisonment in determining the appropriate length of a defendant's term of imprisonment). The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the cost of Pepper's incarceration as a basis for varying downward. Further, giv[ing] due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify Pepper's sentence, Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597, our review of Pepper's sentence reveals no abuse of the district court's considerable discretion and no basis for concluding Pepper's sentence is substantively unreasonable.