Opinion ID: 44261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mandatory/Advisory

Text: In a second and separate majority opinion, the Court in Booker concluded that, to best preserve Congress’s intent in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the appropriate remedy was to “excise” two specific sections, thereby effectively rendering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. 6 Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764 (opinion of Breyer, J.). The Court indicated that both its “Sixth Amendment holding and . . . remedial interpretation of the Sentencing Act” must be applied “to all cases on direct review.” Id. at 769. Here, there is error that is plain because the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1331. In applying the third prong of the plain error test, “we ask whether there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the guidelines had been applied in an advisory instead of binding fashion by the sentencing judge in this case.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005). “To establish the third prong takes something more than showing the district court sentenced within the Guidelines range and felt bound to do so, especially given that the Guidelines range remains an important factor in sentencing.” Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332. In this case, there is a reasonable probability of a different result. The district judge sentenced Claudio at the low end of the guidelines, and stated “It’s the intention of the Court to sentence you at the low end . . . I recognize that you did what you did out of your need and the poverty that [you are] in in Col[o]mbia.” The district judge then went on to discuss how she understood Claudio committed this crime out of desperation. She stated “[y]ou have been taken advantage of and abused again in your life by these people who are higher up the ladder who don’t 7 care about you, agree to pay you some money, and because of your need and your desperation, you do what you do. They don’t care whether you are caught or not.” The judge went on to say, “[b]ut for right now I have no choice. I am required—required to impose this sentence upon you.” All of these comments taken together convince us there is a reasonable probability the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence in Claudio’s case if it had not felt bound by the Guidelines. See id. at 1332–33. We further find the fourth prong of plain error is met here. There is a reasonable probability the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence, and the Supreme Court in Booker indicated the district court now has the discretion to do so, provided the resulting sentence is reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See id. at 1333–34. The plain error that affected Claudio’s substantial rights also seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings in this case. Thus, the district court plainly erred in sentencing Claudio under a mandatory Guidelines system.