Opinion ID: 77406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Booker

Text: 35 As we all now know, Booker made the guidelines advisory. District courts still must correctly calculate the advisory guidelines range, and we review any Booker -based departures outside that range for reasonableness in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the reasons stated by the district court for departing. See, e.g., Williams, 435 F.3d at 1354-55. As we recently explained, [m]oreover, after it has decided the length of departure warranted by the substantial assistance motion, the district court is then obliged to take into account the advisory Guidelines range and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning a reasonable sentence. McVay, 447 F.3d at 1356 (citing Booker, 543 U.S. at 259-60, 125 S.Ct. at 764-65) (first emphasis added). 36 The § 3553(a) factors include: `(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment; (4) the need to protect the public; and (5) the Guidelines range,' id. at 1356-57 (citation omitted), as well as (6) the kinds of sentences available, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3); (7) the need to avoid sentencing disparities among similar defendants who have been found guilty, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); and (8) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). [W]hen imposing a sentence falling far outside of the Guidelines range, based on the § 3553(a) factors, an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances. McVay, 447 F.3d at 1357 (alteration, citation, and quotation marks omitted). 37 On appeal, `[i]n reviewing the ultimate sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness, we consider the final sentence, in its entirety, in light of the § 3553(a) factors.' United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 750 (11th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1349 (11th Cir.2006)); see also United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir.2005) (We do not apply the reasonableness standard to each individual decision made during the sentencing process; rather, we review the final sentence for reasonableness.). The party challenging the sentence has the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). 38 Further, our [r]eview for reasonableness is deferential. We must evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a). Id. [T]here is a range of reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose .... Id. There will also be sentences outside the range of reasonableness that do not achieve the purposes of sentencing stated in § 3553(a) and that thus the district court may not impose. Id.; Crisp, 454 F.3d at 1290. 39 We now turn to Martin's sentence.