Opinion ID: 170163
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The district court’s explanation

Text: Mr. Rivera-Morales complains that the district court did not discuss the sentencing factors individually, but instead uttered one sentence indicating that they had been considered. While in many cases it would be helpful for district courts to lay out their 10 reasons for a certain sentence in great detail, it is not usually necessary. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468-69. Where, as here, a sentence falls within the Guidelines, “§ 3553(c) requires the court to provide only a general statement of the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). While Section 3553(a) does require courts to consider certain factors, it nowhere imposes a duty to specifically address those factors on record. Id. at 1201. The district court stated that it had considered all the Section 3553(a) factors, as well as the presentence report, Mr. Rivera-Morales’s history and characteristics, the kinds of sentences available, and the advisory Guidelines sentence. Moreover, the court explicitly noted that the defense ably raised a number of issues and thanked Mr. RiveraMorales’s counsel for doing so. Rec. vol. III, at 18. After examining these four issues, we hold that the district court did not err in its understanding or application of the Guidelines, and there was no clear error regarding findings of fact.