Opinion ID: 172511
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Procedural Issues

Text: On appeal, Burgess claims the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory because, at sentencing, the court stated: I do look at the other cases that have been prosecuted before this Court and really have to look in this case at the guidelines for guidance in imposing sentence in this case and will be imposing the sentence within the guideline range that has been ... established. (R. Vol. II at 1025.) Burgess also claims the court failed to provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons for his sentence. Our review of the record reveals the district court's statement regarding its intention to sentence within the guideline range followed a complete analysis of the evidence in this case as it bears on the § 3553(a) factors. The court then continued to thoroughly assess the facts relevant to Burgess' conduct. There is no evidence the court considered the guidelines mandatory or failed to consider the sentence in light of the § 3553(a) factors. Indeed, the court went well beyond what we require. See United States v. Tindall, 519 F.3d 1057, 1065 (10th Cir.2008) (A one-sentence explanation accompanying a within-guidelines sentencein the absence of the need to address specific § 3553(a) arguments brought to the district court's attentionsatisfies the district court's duty to impose a procedurally reasonable sentence.). The sentence is procedurally reasonable.