Opinion ID: 1227477
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Procedural reasonableness of sentencing

Text: Vasquez's final challenge is to the reasonableness of his sentence. We review sentences imposed by the district court for reasonableness. United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 509 (6th Cir.2008). Reasonableness review has both a substantive and a procedural component. Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Vowell, 516 F.3d at 509. When reviewing a district court's sentencing determination, we first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range.... Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. Assuming that the district court's sentencing decision is procedurally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. Vasquez argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. He does not argue, however, that the district court inadequately explained the sentence or considered impermissible factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Instead, Vasquez contends that the district court erred in calculating his applicable Guidelines range. His argument is primarily based on the sentencing enhancements imposed by the district court because of its determination of the drug quantity, Vasquez's leadership role, and his obstruction of justice. Because we find no merit in Vasquez's assertions regarding his sentencing enhancements and conclude that the district court did not err, we also reject Vasquez's argument that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.