Opinion ID: 1268816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We have previously held that we do not review a district court's decision not to depart downward unless the record shows that the district court was unaware of, or did not understand, its discretion to make such a departure. United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Lucas, 357 F.3d 599, 609 (6th Cir.2004) (A district court's failure to grant a downward departure can only be reviewed by us upon appeal if the lower court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to grant such a departure as a matter of law.) We do not require that a district court explicitly state that it is aware of its discretion to make such a departure. Puckett, 422 F.3d at 346; Lucas, 357 F.3d at 609-10. Rather, we presume that the district court understood its discretion, absent clear evidence to the contrary. United States v. Crouch, 288 F.3d 907, 910 (6th Cir.2002). Absent any such clear evidence that the district court misunderstood its discretion, we review the decision of the district court only if (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the law; (2) it was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines; (3) the sentence represented an upward departure; or (4) the sentence was imposed for `an offense for which there is no Sentencing Guideline and is plainly unreasonable.' Puckett, 422 F.3d at 346 (citing 18 U.S.C. 3742(a)). If we find review warranted, the plain error standard applies because Santillana did not object to his sentence before the district court. See United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656, 669-70 (6th Cir. 1993). To warrant correction under plain-error review, an error must be plain, affect substantial rights, and substantially affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Jackson, 401 F.3d 747, 750 (6th Cir.2005) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)). If, however, we find review of the district court's decision not to further depart downward unwarranted, we are still free to review a defendant's claim that his sentence is excessive based on the district court's unreasonable analysis of the section 3553(a) factors in their totality. United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470, 477-78 (6th Cir.2006).