Opinion ID: 4349675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guidelines—Advisory versus Mandatory

Text: Garcia argues that the district court impermissibly treated the Guidelines as mandatory by finding that the 135-to-168 month range was “fair and reasonable,” R., 6 Vol. III at 17. Granted, a district court commits error by applying a “presumption of reasonableness to the advisory guidelines when sentencing.” United States v. Conlan, 500 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2007). But the district court here did no such thing. Rather, the district court specifically justified its within-Guidelines sentence based on a consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the advisory nature of the Guidelines.2 Because that dual consideration ultimately led the district court to find the Guidelines sentence “fair and reasonable,” the court did not apply a presumption of reasonableness. Nevertheless, Garcia suggests that a reasonableness presumption is inherent in any district court sentence not “arrived at . . . in a manner that is truly independent of the Guidelines.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 11. That suggestion is simply untenable. As the Supreme Court has explained, a Guidelines sentence is “the starting point and the initial benchmark” against which a district court must “consider all of the § 3553(a) factors.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Indeed, “[f]ederal [district] courts understand that they must begin their analysis with the Guidelines and remain cognizant 2 When the district court referenced the “Sentencing Reform Act,” rather than the Guidelines themselves, as being advisory, the court clearly misspoke. The Sentencing Reform Act established the Sentencing Commission and directed it to promulgate sentencing guidelines. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 367-68 (1989). The Supreme Court later rendered those guidelines advisory by invalidating certain provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259 (2005). Despite the district court’s imprecise statement, the court clearly understood that it wasn’t required to issue a sentence within the guideline range. 7 of them throughout the sentencing process.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).