Opinion ID: 202688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Explanation for Sentence Imposed

Text: 26 In United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518-19 (1st Cir.2006) (en banc), we outlined the appropriate post- Booker approach to sentencing under the federal guidelines to aid us in reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence. We directed trial courts to engage in a sequential determination of the guideline range, including any proposed departures, followed by the further determination whether other factors identified by either side warrant an ultimate sentence above or below the guideline range. Id. An important prerequisite to our reasonableness analysis is the district court's reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Id. at 519. This is true even if the sentence is within the guidelines range. See United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 40-41 (1st Cir.2006). We are, however, prepared to read a district court's less-than-explicit explanation in light of the record. United States v. Navedo-Concepción, 450 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir.2006). The more obvious the reasons for a [sentencing] choice, the less that needs to be explained. Id. 27 Although at times we have been willing to go to great lengths to infer the district court's reasoning from the record, there are limits. United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440, 446-47 (1st Cir.2007). This case exceeds those limits. The district judge gave a one-sentence explanation of her choice of sentence, which conclusorily stated that she had considered the appropriate adjustments and the § 3553(a) factors. She did not explain her guidelines calculation, nor did she include any reasoned analysis or reference any evidence that influenced her decision. She merely stated the sentence and paraphrased three of the seven enumerated factors, which she apparently considered important. 28 Furthermore, we are unable to discern the court's reasoning by looking to the record of the parties' arguments. The government argued for a sentence at the top of the guidelines range considering two enhancements, whereas the defendant requested a sentence at the bottom of the range without the enhancements, citing mitigating factors. The district judge did not explain whether she applied one or both recommended enhancements, what the applicable guidelines range was, whether she thought the defendant deserved a sentence at any point within a particular range, or whether she was influenced by either sides' arguments enough to depart from one of the two ranges under consideration. 29 Consequently, this case differs from other cases in which we were able to understand with a modicum of certitude the reasons behind the district court's choice of sentence by reviewing the sentencing record. See, e.g., United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 470 F.3d 443, 448 (1st Cir.2006) (affirming a sentence where the judge made clear findings on the record, referenced the sentencing factors, and made an explicit statement of the factual basis of the sentence); Navedo-Concepción, 450 F.3d at 57-58 (In this case, the district court's explicit concerns were the scope of the crime and the potential for dangerousness. Beyond that, the district court referred generally to the evidence presented during the trial' as justifying `a sentence at the upper end of the advisory guidelines.'); United States v. Scherrer, 444 F.3d 91, 94 (1st Cir.2006) (Taken at face value, these [mitigating] factors do at first seem to have weight; but the government gave some effective answers in the district court and it is fair to infer that the district court found them persuasive. That the district court did not elaborate on them—it said only that it took them into account—does not preclude the inference where the record explains it.); United States v. Alli, 444 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir.2006) ([Where the district court] simply stated, `[T]his is one of those cases . . . where I think the guidelines produce a sentence that is reasonable and perfectly consistent with the factors enumerated in the statute, 3553(a),' . . . we do not fault the judge for not speaking further about the § 3553(a) factors, given that none were raised for his consideration and, in his independent judgment, none were worthy of further discussion. (second and third alterations in original)). 30 The government argues that it is obvious that the district court chose not to apply the two recommended enhancements and that it then adopted the government's arguments for a sentence at the top of the resultant guidelines range. While this is certainly a plausible reading of the record, even if it were true, the district court's explanation would be insufficient as a matter of law. Section 3553(c)(1) requires that the trial judge identify its reason for selecting a sentence at a particular point within a range exceeding twenty-four months. See Gilman, 478 F.3d at 447 ([T]he statement here does not identify the reason that the district court imposed a sentence in the middle of the guideline range rather than elsewhere within that range (which spans more than 24 months), in direct violation of Section 3553(c)(1).). If the court below rejected the enhancements, which is by no means clear, the guidelines range of 168 to 210 months would exceed twenty-four months, and the court would have to explain why it chose the top of the range. 31 Because the court did not even approximate our Jiménez-Beltre approach nor provide any reasoned explanation for its determination, we will not infer several degrees of reasoning, including a specific explanation explicitly required by law, and guess what the district court was thinking. Therefore, on this ground, 15 we vacate González-Rivera's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion and prior precedent. Id. at 446-47 ([I]f we are in fact unable to discern from the record the reasoning behind the district court's sentence, appellate review is frustrated and `it is incumbent upon us to vacate . . .' the decision below to provide the district court an opportunity to explain its reasoning at resentencing.). 32