Opinion ID: 2766466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, whether it is inside or outside the guidelines range.” United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). First, we consider “whether the district court committed a significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate or incorrectly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, or failing to consider the Section 3553 sentencing factors.” United States v. Simmons, 568 F.3d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Furthermore, we are to determine if the district court relied on “clearly 5 Case: 13-20654 Document: 00512887785 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/02/2015 No. 13-20654 erroneous facts.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In order to determine if there was a significant procedural error, “we review the district court’s interpretation or application of the sentencing guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Scott, 654 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “[I]f the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Armstrong, 550 F.3d 382, 404 (5th Cir. 2008)). We review “upward departures for reasonableness, which necessitates that we review ‘the district court’s decision to depart upwardly and the extent of that departure for abuse of discretion.’” United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)). “In exercising this bifurcated review process, we continue to review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir. 2009). 2