Opinion ID: 674659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence

Text: 34 Finally, Caterino complains that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for its sentence, as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(c). Section 3553(c) requires the court to state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the [range of] the sentence ... exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range. We review the district court's explanation to determine if the explanation is specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir.1991). In his reply brief Caterino admits that the heightened requirements of Sec. 3553 only apply where the range of possible sentences under the Guidelines exceeds 24 months. See United States v. Martinez-Gonzalez, 962 F.2d 874, 879 (9th Cir.1992). He nevertheless claims that the district court's abbreviated explanations are insufficient. He does not, however, explain how he was hindered in obtaining meaningful appellate review of his sentence. Therefore this claim is meritless. 35 REVERSED and REMANDED.