Opinion ID: 53373
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mandatory application of the Guidelines

Text: A district court commits statutory Booker error where it applies the nowadvisory Guidelines system as mandatory. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). Tobin did not preserve his statutory Booker argument below and, therefore, we review that argument only for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2935 (2005). The district court did not apply the Guidelines as mandatory and, therefore, did not commit statutory Booker error. The district court stated it had considered Tobin’s arguments–which discussed consideration of the § 3553(a) factors under Booker, and the presentence investigation report–which repeatedly referenced the advisory nature of the Guidelines in general and the possibility of a post-Booker variance for Tobin’s medical condition. The district court’s statement that “respect” for the Guidelines “under the facts and circumstances of this case” did not permit a sentence below the Guidelines range merely reflects the district court, as required, weighed the Guidelines range, Tobin’s history and characteristics (including his medical condition), and the other § 3553(a) factors, and ultimately concluded that, under the particular facts of Tobin’s case, the considerations embodied in the Guidelines range outweighed the arguments Tobin advanced as to 6 the other § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1186 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding although “the district court made some statements that could be interpreted as presumptions in favor of the Guidelines . . . [t]he court’s decision to defer to the Guidelines was ultimately a case-specific one and was based on consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.”).