Opinion ID: 42099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Wise’s Sentence

Text: Wise argues that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable because it sentenced her within the guideline range as calculated and, according to Wise, 13 must not have considered the mitigating factors that she brought to the court’s attention, such as that this was her first conviction and she was unlikely to be a recidivist. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions in Booker, we review a district court’s sentence, imposed after consulting the guidelines and considering the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at ___, 125 S.Ct. at 767; see also United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[a]fter the district court has accurately calculated the Guideline range, it ‘may impose a more severe or more lenient sentence’ that we review for reasonableness.”) (citation omitted). Among the factors that a district court should consider are the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for adequate deterrence and protection of the public, the pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7). In the instant case, the district court consulted the guidelines, which recommended a sentence of between 24 and 30 months’ imprisonment, and then it proceeded to determine what a “reasonable decision” would be. The court had before it Wise’s memorandum, setting forth arguments in favor of a lighter sentence, as well as her arguments at sentencing regarding her criminal history, 14 likelihood of recidivism, the fact that she had showed remorse, and her level of cooperation. The government believed that a sentence within the guideline range was reasonable, given that Wise had committed a serious bank fraud involving almost $200,000. On the basis of the foregoing, the district court believed that a 24-month sentence was appropriate. Given the circumstances of Wise’s crime, involving the victimization of the elderly, abuse of trust, and 15 counts of fraud involving a substantial sum of money, as well as the fact that she was a first-time offender who had showed remorse and cooperated with the investigation, we conclude that a 24-month sentence, the lowest sentence recommended by the Sentencing Commission, appears very reasonable. See Winingear, at 1246. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error when sentencing Wise. We, therefore, affirm. AFFIRMED. 15