Opinion ID: 62473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Puches’ Time-Served Sentences

Text: As to the first prong of the analysis outlined by Gall, we conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing the Puches. By adopting the advisory guidelines ranges calculated in the presentence investigation report, which were the same guidelines ranges that this Court instructed the district court to consider on remand, the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines range. The district court stated that it had considered the advisory guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors, along with the pleadings filed by the parties, in its sentencing decision. The district court then listed the § 3553(a) factors, even though it was not required to do so. Finally, the district court explained its reasons as to why a sentence of time served was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. In light of the above, we conclude that there was no procedural error in the district court’s decision. As to the second prong of the analysis outlined in Gall, however, we conclude that the Puches’ sentences are substantively unreasonable because the district court based its Booker variance on a legally erroneous factor. See Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1192. The district court accepted the guidelines calculations by the probation officer. However, in outlining the factors supporting the Booker variance to a time-served sentence, the district court stated that the guidelines 13 enhancement of the Puches’ base offense levels based on the amount of loss violated their Sixth Amendment rights because the loss figure was not submitted to the jury. This statement was incorrect because “‘the use of extra-verdict enhancements in an advisory guidelines system is not unconstitutional.’” United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, enhancement of the Puches’ sentences based on a loss figure that was not submitted to the jury did not violate the Puches’ Sixth Amendment rights under Booker because the district court was now resentencing the Puches’ under an advisory guidelines scheme. See id. at 1324 (stating that a sentencing court could make fact findings beyond those charged in the indictment “because it applied the guidelines in an advisory way” and that “[n]othing in Booker is to the contrary”); Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1300 (stating, in reviewing a pre-Booker sentence, that “if the same extra-verdict enhancements had been found and used in the same way in a non-mandatory guidelines system the result would have been constitutionally permissible”). Thus, the district court based the extent of its sentence variance on a legally incorrect factor, i.e., a supposed Sixth Amendment violation that did not exist.4 4 We reject the Puches’ argument that the government waived its objections to their sentences. 14 Further, we cannot say that the district court’s consideration of this alleged Sixth Amendment error in its Booker variance sentences was harmless. The district court’s sentencing order does not indicate that it gave the alleged Sixth Amendment error any less weight than the other factors listed as a basis for its Booker variance. While the district court’s statements expressing “deep dissatisfaction” with the guidelines range and its opinion that a guidelines sentence was “quite harsh” strongly suggest that it would make some downward variance from the advisory guidelines range, it is not clear that the district court would have varied downward to the same extent if not for its misconception regarding the Sixth Amendment violation.5 Therefore, because the record as a whole does not show that the misconception about the alleged Sixth Amendment violation did not substantially affect the district court’s decision to impose Booker variance sentences of time served, we vacate the Puches’ sentences and remand to the district court for the limited purpose of resentencing the Puches without consideration of this factor. SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 5 We recognize that the district court stated that it would impose the same sentences regardless of the guidelines range. However, the district court’s order suggests that it would do so, in part, because of its conclusion that there was a Sixth Amendment violation in the amount-of-loss figure. Nothing herein suggests any opinion regarding the ultimate sentences imposed in this case. We say only that the district court considered a legally incorrect factor in imposing the sentences here. 15