Opinion ID: 213946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim of Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

Text: Finally, Berg contends that the district court failed to address his claim that the mandatory minimum sentence for a § 2422(b) conviction results in unwarranted sentencing disparities, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). This alleged error, according to Berg, rendered his sentence unreasonable. We review sentencing procedures de novo, United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426, 431 (7th Cir.2010), and review the sentence itself for reasonableness, United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir.2009). A below-Guidelines sentence, like Berg's, is presumptively reasonable. Id. [2] The record shows that the district court addressed Berg's claim of unwarranted sentencing disparities. At the sentencing hearing the court said that it share[d] counsel's concern about disparity here and stated that courts are to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity. According to the district court, accomplishing that in Berg's case was very difficult ... because [the sentences] are all over the place. The court identified ten cases and the sentences imposed, noting the conduct for which the defendant was convicted and other relevant information, including the differences in the number of images involved and the defendant's background, among other factors. The court said that it mentioned some of the cases because... even a minimum statutory sentence... here is years longer than some of the sentences in these cases where I think the conduct ... is much worse. Berg's Guideline range was 235 to 293 months. The court sentenced Berg to 124 months, only four months above the mandatory minimum, see 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and way below the Guidelines range. [S]entencing courts are ... bound by the minimum sentences set forth in the United States Code, United States v. Harris, 567 F.3d 846, 852 (7th Cir.) (citing Kimbrough v. United States, [552 U.S. 85, 107,] 128 S.Ct. 558, 573, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007)), cert. denied sub nom. James v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1032, 175 L.Ed.2d 632 (2009), so the court was obliged to sentence Berg to at least 120 months. And the court explained that the four months above the minimum sentence were to account for its finding that Berg had not been completely truthful at trial. Thus, in imposing the 124-month, below-Guideline sentence, the court did what it could to account for unwarranted sentencing disparities, while not dipping below the mandatory minimum. Nothing more was required to satisfy the obligation to consider § 3553(a)(6). Berg has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his below-Guidelines sentence.