Opinion ID: 790692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-Booker Review

Text: 66 The government appeals Canova's probationary sentence on the grounds that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range and, in any event, erred in granting him a downward departure based on extraordinary public service and good works. To the extent it urges this court to examine the departure decision de novo pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), as amended in 2003 by the PROTECT Act, see Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (Apr. 30, 2003); United States v. Simmons, 343 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir.2003), such review is now foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621, which, inter alia, excised § 3742(e) from federal sentencing law to permit the federal Sentencing Guidelines to be treated as advisory rather than mandatory, thereby surviving a Sixth Amendment challenge, see id. at 764-65. Booker instructs that sentences should be reviewed on appeal only for unreasonableness. Id. at 765-66. 67 In applying this more deferential standard of review, we focus primarily on the sentencing court's compliance with its statutory obligation to consider the factors detailed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 766 (noting that § 3553(a) factors will guide appellate courts, as they have in the past, in determining whether a sentence is unreasonable). Prior to Booker, sentencing courts understandably gave predominant, indeed controlling, weight to two factors identified in § 3553(a): the sentencing range established by the federal Sentencing Guidelines, see id. § 3553(a)(4), and the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, see id. § 3553(a)(5). To assess whether this formerly common error resulted in an unreasonable sentence in a particular case, this court has remanded unpreserved Sixth Amendment challenges to pre- Booker sentences to the district court for it to determine if a defendant's sentence would have been materially different if the court had understood that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. See United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 117-18. 68 This case differs from most post- Booker appeals in that the defendant raises no Sixth Amendment challenge to his probationary sentence. Rather, the government complains that the district court miscalculated the applicable Guidelines as well as misapprehended its departure authority within the Guidelines system. The argument is not rendered irrelevant by Booker. As Crosby recognized, even under an advisory Guidelines system, district courts will normally have to determine the applicable Guidelines range ... in the same manner as before Booker [ ], id. at 111-12, in order to decide whether (i) to impose the sentence that would have been imposed under the Guidelines, i.e., a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range or within permissible departure authority, or (ii) to impose a non-Guidelines sentence, id. at 113. 20 In United States v. Rubenstein, we recently ruled that a Guidelines error that appreciabl[y] influence[s] this decision could render the final sentence unreasonable. 403 F.3d at 98. 69 Thus, we review the government's sentencing challenges to determine whether any error presents this concern so as to warrant remand for resentencing.