Opinion ID: 2724242
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Counting/Variance

Text: During sentencing, Kennedy pointed out that a prior conviction doubly penalized him because it led to a six-level increase in his base offense level and impacted his criminal history level as well. Due to this double counting, Kennedy requested that the district court consider a lower guidelines range for sentencing. The district court rejected the request without any explanation. Kennedy argues that the district court failed to explain adequately its rejection of a request for a variance on this basis.10 Kennedy cites United States v. Robertson, 309 F. App’x 918 (6th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that the district judge was required to address the nonfrivolous, complex argument. Id. at 923–24. While Kennedy’s counsel did not explicitly state during the sentencing proceeding that she was requesting a variance, she stated that “my argument [is] . . . that the guidelines, as calculated by probation, overstate the severity and the nature of Mr. Kennedy’s criminal history, and that’s the reason that I also ask the Court to consider the guideline range of 46 to 57 months.” R. 68 (Sentencing Tr. at 16) (Page ID #1244). Such a statement is a request for a downward variance. Cf. Robertson, 309 F. App’x at 922–23 (“Although Robertson used the 10 Kennedy also states that the court failed to understand that he was asking for a variance because of the double effect his prior criminal conviction had on his base offense level and criminal history. However, while the district judge originally misunderstood the argument as an objection, the district judge acknowledged this failure and asked defense counsel to state the argument in full. The restatement clarified defense counsel’s request. Nothing suggests that the district court, after getting clarification from defense counsel, misunderstood the request that Kennedy made. 23 No. 13-1616 United States v. Kennedy word ‘departure,’ it is clear from the context of the sentencing memorandum and Robertson’s counsel’s clarification and argument before the district court at the sentencing hearing that what Robertson was really requesting was a downward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors because of the double-counting issue.”). “An argument that a district court should award a variance based on the § 3553(a) factors because the guideline range double-counted prior offenses is a nonfrivolous argument.” Id. at 923. The district court should have addressed the nonfrivolous argument and explained why it was rejecting that argument. United States v. Peters, 512 F.3d 787, 789 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007)). A review of the sentencing transcript reveals no discussion by the district court of Kennedy’s argument that the sentencing guidelines were unduly harsh due to double counting. The district court has failed to address the nonfrivolous argument and to explain the reason for rejecting it. Because of this failure, we must vacate the sentence and remand for consideration of a downward variance in light of the potential double counting.