Opinion ID: 777088
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to State Reasons

Text: 93 Greer and Hutchins request a remand for resentencing because the District Court failed to state its reasons for imposing sentences of 324 months' and 276 months' imprisonment, respectively. 94 Whether we may review a district court's failure to state its reasons for imposing a particular sentence depends on whether the court imposed a sentence within an applicable Sentencing Guideline range that exceeds 24 months or whether it departed downward and imposed a sentence outside the applicable range. Title 18, section 3553(c)(1) of the United States Code requires a district court to explain its reasons for imposing a sentence at a particular point within a Guidelines range if the range exceeds 24 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1); see also United States v. Prince, 110 F.3d 921, 927 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 872, 118 S.Ct. 188, 139 L.Ed.2d 127 (1997). Title 18, section 3553(c)(2) similarly requires a district court to state its reasons for imposing a sentence outside the range established by the Guidelines — that is, for departing. 7 See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). However, in United States v. Hargrett, 156 F.3d 447, 450 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1048, 119 S.Ct. 607, 142 L.Ed.2d 547 (1998), we held that a court's failure to explain the extent of a downward departure — even when the departure is to a sentencing range exceeding 24 months, see id. at 450 n. 1 — is unreviewable on appeal by a defendant. We noted that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) does not allow courts of appeals to review a district court's refusal to grant a downward departure or the extent of any downward departure that is granted. See id. As such, a rule that allows review of the failure to explain the extent of a departure would be anomalous. Id. The end result is that we may only review the District Court's failure to state its reasons for the defendants' sentences if those sentences were not the result of downward departures. 95 Unfortunately, however, the District Court's sentencing remarks are ambiguous. In its Order: Guidelines Application Issues, the court wrote that, though it had enhanced the defendants' base offense levels by two points for use of an aircraft in importing or exporting a controlled substance under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2)(A), it was departing downward two levels—and thus canceling out the enhancement — because the use of the plane was minimal. Yet in its Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case, the court stated that the airplane enhancement will not be applied, and in its Statement of Reasons for Sentence, the court reiterated that the airplane enhancement will not be applied. In its oral decision at the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention any airplane enhancement and subsequent departure. In addition, in the Statement of Reasons section of the Judgment, the court checked the box for the statement, The sentence is within the guidelines range, that range does not exceed 24 months, and the court finds no reason to depart from the sentence called for by the application of the guidelines. Accordingly, the court left blank the next area, which called for reasons for the imposition of a sentence in a range that exceeds 24 months. 96 Because we find the District Court's remarks ambiguous, we remand for clarification as to whether the court in fact sentenced the defendants within their applicable ranges or downwardly departed to arrive at their sentences. See United States v. Thorpe, 191 F.3d 339, 342-44 (2d Cir.1999). If the District Court did not depart downward, it should provide a statement of reasons for imposing the defendants' sentences at a particular point within their applicable ranges, which exceed 24 months, as required by § 3553(c)(1). 8 See United States v. Zackson, 6 F.3d 911, 924 (2d Cir.1993) (vacating and remanding for statement of reasons); United States v. Chartier, 933 F.2d 111, 117 (2d Cir.1991) (vacating the sentence and remanding because, though record contained some discussion of the judge's reasoning, district court did not fully comply with the requirement of § 3553(c)(1)).