Opinion ID: 201998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mechanistic Sentencing

Text: Defendant's remaining claim of error is that the judge used a mechanical sentencing policy in declining to sentence him to the bottom of the applicable guidelines range because he was a repeat offender. Assuming, without deciding, that we have jurisdiction to review that claim,2 see Vazquez-Molina, 389 F.3d at 58; see also id. at 60, any such error does not warrant relief under plain-error standards. First, as this court has previously held, the sentencing court's reliance on a defendant's prior conviction as a basis for choosing a sentence within the applicable guidelines range is entirely permissible. Vazquez-Molina, 389 F.3d at 61. Second, from the judge's comments at sentencing, it appears that the judge's policy is not as absolute or mechanistic as defendant claims. In any event, in this case, the judge expressly considered 2 After United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), a sentence within the guidelines range is reviewable for reasonableness, id. at 765. Here, however, defendant does not argue that his sentence is unreasonable. -5- both defendant's individual circumstances and the purposes of sentencing in deciding what sentence to impose. The district court's judgment and sentence in Case No. 04-019 and its judgment and sentence in Case No. 04-020 are summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). -6-