Opinion ID: 2975372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Richard Burley

Text: The district court calculated Burley’s applicable Guidelines range as between 92 and 115 months of imprisonment. Because the court imposed a sentence of 92 months, that sentence carries a presumption of reasonableness. See Rita, 2007 WL 1772146, at -9. But sentencing a defendant to a within-Guidelines term of imprisonment does not relieve the district court of its responsibility to explain its reasons for imposing that sentence. United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006). A defendant is entitled to resentencing if the district court simply provides a list of the defendant’s characteristics “without any accompanying analysis.” United States v. Jackson, 408 F.3d 301, 305 (6th Cir. 2005) (vacating a sentence as unreasonable for lack of any analysis). In sentencing Burley, however, the district court considered his PSR, the evidence from the sentencing hearings, argument from both the government and from Burley’s counsel, a statement by - 17 - Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark Burley himself, and the Sentencing Guidelines. Burley argues in response that the PSR overrepresents his criminal history, that he was a latecomer to the scheme and not the “mastermind,” and that he took responsibility for his conduct by entering a guilty plea in a timely fashion. Accordingly, Burley contended that a downward variance from the Guidelines range would be appropriate. The district court sought clarification from counsel and the Probation Department on how Burley’s criminal history category was calculated. After a discussion, the court stated that the similarity of Burley’s previous criminal activity did not “diminish[] his involvement in the criminal offense,” and concluded that “the guideline range . . . fairly account[s] for the sentence that would be proportionate[] and just.” The court found that Burley might not have been “the brains behind the operation,” but noted that his “level of activity in relation to this fraud was so much greater” than some of the other coconspirators. Burley, the district court emphasized, had “many, many opportunities along the line . . . to drop out of the ongoing criminal activity,” but did not do so. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Guidelines range of 92 to 115 months “responds to the magnitude of the offense and the need for deterrence” of both Burley and of others. Satisfied that the PSR’s recommendation was correct, the court then imposed a sentence of 92 months, at the low end of the applicable range. We conclude that Burley’s sentence satisfies the standard for reasonableness. The district court was aware that the Guidelines are only advisory and it adequately accounted for the § 3553(a) factors. Although the court could have perhaps done more in analyzing the factors in relation to this particular defendant and in linking Burley with the sentence imposed, we conclude that it sufficiently - 18 - Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark explained the basis for its ruling. See Rita, 2007 WL 1772146, at  (“[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.”); id. at  (“Where a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.”).