Opinion ID: 169045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of the Enhancement

Text: Because the District Court properly applied the enhancement under the advisory Guidelines, Mr. Cole’s sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See Kristl, 437 F.3d at 1054. Mr. Cole does not challenge his sentence on other grounds, and he has not rebutted this presumption. We note, however, that the District Court considered other § 3553(a) factors in resentencing Mr. Cole, and even without the presumption, his sentence is reasonable. In addition to considering the advisory Guidelines, the court referred to other § 3553(a) factors in reaching its conclusion. See United States v. Jarrillo-Luna, 478 F.3d 1226, 1230 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that, in considering an argument for leniency, a sentencing judge “must somehow indicate that he or she did not rest on the Guidelines alone, but considered whether the Guideline sentence actually conforms, in the circumstances, to the statutory factors” (quotation omitted)). In particular, the court determined that the sentence is necessary to reflect the serious nature of the offense, especially given Mr. Cole’s criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The court also found that the sentence is necessary to provide adequate deterrence, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(B), and to protect the public, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(C), and that a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range promotes uniformity in sentencing among similar defendants, see id. § 3553(a)(6). The District Court therefore applied the Guidelines in an advisory fashion and determined that, in its discretion, Mr. Cole’s sentence of 84 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. We recognize that the District Court -9- has “primary responsibility for determining whether to vary from the advisory Guidelines,” United States v. Aguayo-Gonzalez, 472 F.3d 809, 813 (10th Cir. 2007), and conclude that its decision not to do so is reasonable.