Opinion ID: 1262661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: An incorrect calculation of the Guidelines range can thwart reasonableness review

Text: Our reasonableness review relies on a district court's reasoning from the starting point of the correctly calculated Guidelines through the § 3553(a) factors. Our Court, our sister courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court agree that a district court's use of the incorrect Guidelines range impedes our ability to conduct review of the ultimate sentence. We have emphasized that a sentencing court's failure to execute Gunter's first step will tend to thwart our reasonableness review. See Jackson, 467 F.3d at 838-39 ([D]istrict courts must still calculate what the proper Guidelines sentencing range is, otherwise the Guidelines cannot be considered properly at Gunter's third step.). For, the correct computation of the Guidelines range and any departures therefrom serves to clarify the basis for the sentence imposed and thus facilitates reasonableness review. United States v. Floyd, 499 F.3d 308, 311 (3d Cir.2007). In United States v. Ali, we explained that, by relying on an incorrectly calculated Guidelines range and an improper departure determination, a sentencing judge necessarily was unable meaningfully to consider the recommended Guidelines range as required by § 3553(a)(4). 508 F.3d 136, 154 (3d Cir.2007). Thus, we concluded, the preliminary errors at steps one and two tainted the step three analysis and resulting sentence. Id. (remanding for resentencing based on the court's error at Gunter's step one). Our sister courts of appeals agree that the correct guidelines range is still the critical starting point for the imposition of a sentence and a prerequisite to reasonableness review. Crawford, 407 F.3d at 1178-79; Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d at 631 (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Zeigler, 463 F.3d 814, 819 (8th Cir.2006) (Hansen, J., concurring) (Generally, if the district court errs in applying the Guidelines at step one or fails to consider a requested departure at step two, we cannot conduct a reasonableness review because the district court's critical starting point, a correctly determined advisory Guidelines range, may be flawed.); United States v. Staten, 466 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2006) (If . . . `there was material error in the Guidelines calculation that serves as the starting point for the district court's sentencing decision, we will remand for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f), without reaching the question of whether the sentence as a whole is reasonable in light of § 3553(a).'). As the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated, where the sentence fails the first step of our analysis [because of an incorrect application of the Guidelines], we need not reach the second step, a determination of whether the imposed sentence is reasonable in light of § 3553(a). United States v. Moshek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1020 (8th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2006) (only if the Guidelines calculation is correct or the error harmless can the court go on to consider whether the sentence is reasonable); United States v. Hernandez-Castillo, 449 F.3d 1127, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 2006) (same). The importance of a correctly calculated range to our reasonableness review is evident in the Supreme Court's opinions as well. While Gall reinforced a district court's discretionary authority to choose the substance of a sentence, it also clarified the role of courts of appeals in reviewing procedural and substantive errors in sentencing. In both Gall and Kimbrough, the Court began by noting that the sentencing court had properly calculated and considered the advisory Guidelines range and only then turned to the sentencing court's consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 575; Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 598. Accordingly, in Gall, the Court instructed us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range before considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. This first step, ensuring that the sentencing court did not make a procedural error, is increasingly important in light of the Supreme Court's decision that a Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. In sum, while the district court is free to make its own reasonable application of the § 3553(a) factors, and to reject (after due consideration) the advice of the Guidelines, Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 577 (Scalia, J., concurring), it must first duly consider the correct Guidelines. Thus, a district court's incorrect Guidelines calculation will thwart not only its ability to accomplish the analysis it is to undertake, but our reasonableness review as well.