Opinion ID: 2791332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Upward Variance

Text: Pennington challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 84-month sentence, which is 43 months greater than the top of his Guidelines range. Because Pennington did not challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, we review that argument for plain error. Under plain error review, “we may not provide relief unless there was (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Even when these elements are met, we have discretion to correct the forfeited error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Tang, 718 F.3d at 482–483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Pennington argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain the We may part ways here with the Second Circuit. See United States v. Reeves, 591 3 F.3d 77, 80–81 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding “too vague to be enforceable” a condition requiring the defendant to notify the probation department “when he establishes a significant romantic relationship”). But see State v. Maddox, Nos. 2010-194, 2010-195, 2010-196, 2011 WL 4979925, at  (Vt. 2011) (finding that a condition requiring the defendant to “inform the probation officer of his intent to begin a romantic or dating relationship” was “sufficiently clear to put defendant on notice” and distinguishing Reeves on the ground that the condition did not include the term “significant”). The Second Circuit cites Hollywood for the truth that relationships often begin, and continue, with romantic uncertainty. Reeves, 591 F.3d at 81. However, while the line between friendship and romance may not be immediately clear to a moviegoer, or even to the target of affections, Pennington should know when he intends to become romantically involved with another person. Regardless, courts every day are obliged to adjudicate criminal cases, even with arrested persons and not twice-convicted sex offenders, and must assess and impose no-contact orders, as well as lesser restrictions on personal associations. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(B)(iv); see generally United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). 11 Case: 14-60182 Document: 00512992669 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 No. 14-60182 sentence and failed to address the mitigating factors that Pennington offered. These factors include Pennington’s history of mental illness, his homelessness, his low level of education, and his lack of family support. It is procedural error to “fail[] to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The sentencing 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 decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). “A sentence within the Guidelines range will require little explanation, but where a party ‘presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence . . . the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments.’” United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013) (first internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 357). In United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013), we held that the sentencing judge adequately explained her reasons for rejecting mitigating evidence and imposing an upward variance where she “heard and considered the evidence and arguments, repeatedly questioned Fraga, the prosecution and the probation officer, and gave Fraga multiple opportunities to speak and present mitigating evidence,” before adopting the PSR and concluding that an “upward variance was necessary to deter future criminal conduct and to protect the public.” At Pennington’s sentencing, the district court listened to Pennington’s arguments and gave him and his counsel several opportunities to speak. The court told Pennington, “I hear what you are saying regarding the lack of resources that have been available to you.” Nevertheless, the court stated that an upward variance was appropriate based on the sentencing factors listed in 12 Case: 14-60182 Document: 00512992669 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 No. 14-60182 § 3553(a), including “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the history and characteristics of the defendant,” the need “to protect the public,” and the need “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” The court thoroughly explained the factual basis for the variance, including Pennington’s two prior convictions for sex offenses, his repeated failure to register as a sex offender, and his numerous violations of probation. We find no plain error in the court’s explanation of its sentence or its response to Pennington’s arguments. Pennington also objects to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We review Pennington’s argument for abuse of discretion because he objected on that basis in the district court. See id. In reviewing Pennington’s sentence for substantive reasonableness, we must consider “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). However, we “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, “[t]he fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id. “A sentence is unreasonable if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pennington argues that the district court failed to account for the mitigating factors that he highlighted, and that it gave excessive weight to his criminal history. We find Pennington’s arguments unpersuasive. As noted above, the district court considered the mitigating factors that Pennington presented. The 13 Case: 14-60182 Document: 00512992669 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 No. 14-60182 court nevertheless decided that other factors, including Pennington’s criminal history, supported a significant variance. We have held that “[a] defendant’s criminal history is one of the factors that a court may consider in imposing a non-Guideline[s] sentence.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). “And, we have previously found it permissible for a sentencing judge to evaluate the ‘nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant’ and conclude that it would deviate ‘to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct’ and ‘to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.’” Fraga, 704 F.3d at 440 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted) (holding that “the district court judge did not abuse her discretion in giving significant weight to Fraga’s criminal history and its characteristics”). Given the deference we owe to the sentencing court, we find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the variance. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 337–38 (5th Cir. 2011) (stating that a substantial deviation from the Guidelines did not constitute an abuse of discretion where it was “commensurate with the individualized, case-specific reasons provided by the district court” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).