Opinion ID: 615015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentencing Guidelines were no longer deemed mandatory. Instead, they were deemed advisory. Since Booker, district courts are required to follow a three-step process in determining the appropriate sentence in this advisory scheme. “(1) Courts must continue to calculate a defendant’s Guidelines sentence precisely as they would have before Booker. (2) In doing so, they must formally rule on the motions of both parties and state on the record whether they are granting a departure and how that departure affects the Guidelines calculation, and take into account our Circuit’s preBooker case law, which continues to have advisory force. (3) Finally, they are required to exercise [their] discretion by considering the relevant [§ 3553(a)] factors, in setting the sentence they impose regardless whether it varies from the sentence calculated under the 6 Guidelines.” United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). The sentencing judges are statutorily required to state their reasons for imposing a sentence, although a comprehensive, detailed opinion is not required. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The judge must provide an explanation that is sufficient to “satisfy the appellate court that [the district court] considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decision-making authority.” Id. Williford contends that the District Court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors when it sentenced him to twelve months of imprisonment for a Grade C technical violation of his supervised release, and did not address its rationale for the sentence it imposed. We disagree. Under the Statutory Guidelines, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court may: revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision, if the court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to revocation of probation or supervised release, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release, except that a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve on any such revocation more than 5 years in prison if the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a class A felony, more than 3 years in prison if such offense is a class B felony, more than 2 years in prison if such offense is a class C or D felony, or more than one year in any other case. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 7 According to § 7B1.4(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, and based on a criminal history category of III, the range of imprisonment applicable for revocation of a Grade C violation is 5 to 11 months. Further, Commentary 3 to § 7B1.4 states that “[i]n the case of a Grade C violation that is associated with a high risk of new felonious conduct . . . an upward departure may be warranted.” The District Court was not required to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range. It could have imposed a sentence up to the statutory maximum of 2 years of imprisonment. The advisory Guidelines range was correctly calculated from 5 to 11 months of imprisonment. The District Court considered arguments from the government and Williford’s counsel regarding the sentence to be imposed. Williford’s counsel requested a sentence in the “several month” advisory Guidelines range, and the government discussed the 5 to 11 month range. After considering all of the abovementioned factors, the District Court exercised its discretion in sentencing Williford to 12 months of imprisonment. In doing so, there was no abuse of discretion. The next step in sentencing is to “consider those arguments in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” Gunter, 462 F.3d at 247. Williford contends that the District Court did not consider the § 3553(a) factors. We disagree. The District Court is not required to list each factor. It is evident from the transcript of the last 8 revocation hearing that the Court considered the factors. 2 We find that the District Court considered the § 3553(a) factors. The nature and seriousness of the offense is reflected in the record regarding Williford’s extensive interactions with the District Court, including the recitation of the countless revocation hearings the Court held. The District Court discussed the need for the sentence imposed, apparently patience and deterrence had not worked. Although reluctant to exceed the Guidelines, the District Court revoked Williford’s supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months of imprisonment. The record shows that the District Court considered the § 3553(a) factors. Most important, the District Court took into account that Williford became a fugitive, thus disobeying the Court’s Order. Also, the District Court noted “[t]here’s no question he’s a serial violator. . . .” Williford had at least four revocation hearings over time. The substantive component of a reasonableness review requires the appellate court to take into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Lychock, 578 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 2009). Although the appellate court considers the extent of any variance from the advisory Guidelines range, it must also give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 2 “A sentencing court need not make findings as to each factor if the record otherwise makes clear that the court took the factors into account.” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir. 2006). A district judge “should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision making authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. 9 variance. Id. The substantive reasonableness of each sentence must be evaluated on its own terms, based on the reasons that the district court provided, in light of the particular facts and circumstances of that case. Tomko, 562 F.3d at 574. In looking at the totality of the circumstances, we determine whether a reasonable court would have applied the same sentence as the district court. See Lychock, 578 F.3d at 219 n.2. Here, the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The only question for us to resolve is whether the District Court abused its discretion in sentencing Williford to one month above the advisory Guidelines range. The District Court did not commit a procedural error; the appropriate U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range was not contested by either party, and the District Court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. In addition, the District Court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and selected a sentence based on appropriate facts elucidated in the record. The District Court adequately explained the sentence it imposed. The sentence is substantively reasonable. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Williford to 12 months of imprisonment.