Opinion ID: 2977670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Younes

Text: Younes argues that his sentence was unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), because the district court “created unwarranted sentence disparities among the defendants in this case with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct” and the district court did not adequately explain its decision. Younes’s sentence is not procedurally unreasonable. The district court examined the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), noted that the Guidelines were not mandatory, and adequately explained the reasons for the chosen sentence. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The district court “paid close attention and considered the nature and circumstances of this offense and the history and/or characteristics of the Defendant.” The district court specifically examined 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), noting that in comparing the sentences, it considered “many many factors,” including the advisory Guidelines and motions for downward departures for substantial assistance and acceptance of responsibility ruled upon by the court. Younes argues this explanation is insufficient. From the record, however, it is clear that the district court considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and explained the “basis for rejecting it.” United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006). Applying a presumption of reasonableness to this within-Guidelines sentence, Younes’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Wittingen, 519 F.3d at 637. While a “district court may consider disparity in the sentencing of codefendants . . . a departure intended to achieve 17 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 uniformity . . . is not appropriate when a basis for the disparity exists.” United States v. Walls, 293 F.3d 959, 969 (6th Cir. 2002). Younes has not rebutted this presumption. He does not argue about his sentence at all but instead criticizes the Guidelines for the sentences given to other defendants. Younes bases his argument on the number of counts of conviction for each defendant, the length of each defendant’s sentence, and the length of each defendant’s probation. However, he does not discuss factors contributing to his co-defendants’ sentences, such as an early plea, acceptance of responsibility, or substantial assistance. Here, Younes went to trial while many of his co-defendants did not, and he did not receive credit for substantial assistance or acceptance of responsibility, unlike many of his co-defendants. Because we conclude that Younes’s sentence was reasonable, we affirm it.