Opinion ID: 215087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantive Reasonableness of the Sentence Imposed

Text: Hubbard next contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. He maintains that the district court should not have considered his criminal history when determining his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the Guidelines had already taken his criminal history into account when calculating the applicable Guidelines range. When we review the imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We `must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error,' including `failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.' Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). Because Hubbard has not alleged any form of procedural error, we bypass the first part of our review and move directly to review the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. United States v. O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395, 397 (8th Cir.2009). We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed using a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. In making this determination, this court must take into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the sentence imposed is within the advisory Guidelines range, this court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The district court should make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, specifically addressing the defendant's proffered information in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Jordan, 573 F.3d 586, 590 (8th Cir.2009) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the top of the applicable Guidelines range. Hubbard cites no authority for his assertion that a court may not consider a defendant's criminal history separately from the calculation of the applicable Guidelines range. In contrast, the language of § 3553(a) requires a sentencing court to consider, among other things, the history and characteristics of the defendant and the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant along with the applicable sentence recommended by the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C) and (a)(4)(A). Here, the court considered Hubbard's criminal history as one of several factors justifying a sentence at the top of the applicable Guidelines range. The record demonstrates that the court made an individualized assessment of Hubbard, considering letters, memoranda, and oral arguments he submitted to the court. Hubbard has not demonstrated that his within-Guidelines sentence should not be entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, and after a careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hubbard to 96 months' imprisonment.