Opinion ID: 621569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive Reasonableness of Watkins' Sentence

Text: Finally, Watkins argues that his sentence of 233 months' imprisonment is substantively unreasonable. He argues that he should have been given a less harsh sentence within the [G]uidelines range because, among other reasons, he accepted full responsibility for his actions and attempted to undo the harm that he caused by openly and immediately confessing to the crime and by cooperating with authorities in securing his own conviction. Appellant's Br. 17, 18. However, Watkins' sentence already includes a three-level reduction for cooperation, pursuant to U.S.S.G § 3E1.1, and the record reveals that he may have exacerbated the damage he had done by sending antagonistic letters to Doe and her family members after his arrest. Watkins also contends that his sentence is unreasonably excessive because it was not reduced in light of the fact that no violence or force was used against Doe during the commission of the offense. Def.'s Br. 17. However, this fact does not require a reduction and is already reflected in Watkins' Guidelines-range sentence. Had Watkins used force against Doe, his Guidelines-range would have been higher. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(3) (cross-referencing § 2A3.1, under which Watkins' offense level would have been at least 35, taking into account Watkins' § 3E1.1 reduction for cooperation, regardless of the statute of conviction). Finally, Watkins claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he had no intention of harming Doe and because Doe was an active, willing and voluntary co-conspirator. However, as the District Court found, Watkins fail[s] to grasp the gravity of [his] conduct and the future effect it may well have on the victim. This finding is entitled to deference. It should also be added that the District Court did not commit clear error by basing Watkins' sentence at least in part on his lengthy criminal history (twenty-two state crime convictions) and what appeared to be a high risk of recidivism. Nothing in the record indicates that Watkins' sentence, which is at the top of the applicable Guidelines range, is outside the range of permissible decisions. Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence of 233 months' imprisonment.