Opinion ID: 2795144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consecutive v. Concurrent Sentences

Text: At the time of sentencing for his federal offense, Sandidge was serving an unrelated state term of imprisonment. Under the version of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) then in effect, the district court had discretion to impose Sandidge’s federal sentence to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to his undischarged state term. 4 The Guidelines 4 The Guidelines have since been amended. Effective November 1, 2014, the provision formerly housed in U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) is now contained in subsection (d). 16 No. 14-1492 offer these options to allow the court to “achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). As described above, the court correctly calculated Sandidge’s Guidelines range of imprisonment as 92 to 115 months. Sandidge requested a below-Guidelines sentence of 46 months. At the sentencing hearing, his counsel outlined Sandidge’s significant physical and mental health issues. In addition, counsel noted that Sandidge had admitted to possession of the offending firearm. Counsel then stated: I think that a sentence within the guidelines range is much too excessive in this case. It’s just not necessary to promote any of the statutory purposes of sentencing. I would note that Mr. Sandidge is serving a state sentence right now … I would at least ask that Mr. Sandidge be given time in this case concurrent to the time that he has in that case. Sandidge himself then made a statement. The government made its arguments opposing the requested 46-month sentence. After recounting Sandidge’s extensive criminal history, the government recommended a within-Guidelines sentence of 92 months, and it did not at that time address Sandidge’s request for a concurrent sentence. Sandidge’s counsel then reiterated his argument for a 46month sentence and again requested that it be imposed to run concurrently with Sandidge’s state sentence. He stated, “I do, you know, think that 92 months is excessive, and usually those types of sentences are handed out to criminals who have engaged in extremely violent conduct. And that’s just not the case here. 92 months is excessive. At the very least, I would ask that the court impose a concurrent term.” No. 14-1492 17 The government responded that it opposed a concurrent term for the federal offense, given that the two crimes were unrelated. The district court then conducted its review of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (“3553(a) factors”). It first weighed the seriousness of the offense, as measured by the maximum possible punishment authorized by Congress. The court then discussed Sandidge’s lengthy criminal history, stating that Sandidge had been “in and out of jail over and over and over again.” It also noted that Sandidge had “caught a lot of breaks in the justice system,” but had “squandered them away” by committing more crimes. In addition, the court considered the recidivist nature of Sandidge’s criminal history, concluding that there was “a common thread that goes through all these cases.” The judge noted, “I see drugs. I see guns. I see threats.” The district court then considered the need for Sandidge’s sentence to promote respect for the law and to protect society. It concluded that Sandidge was “a menace to society right now,” admonishing him that, “[y]ou’re a menace to society for the reason you keep breaking the law, that you keep putting people in harm’s way, that you keep getting back in trouble over and over again.” Finally, the district court discussed Sandidge’s age and health conditions. It twice emphasized that, in its view, the Guidelines range was low as applied to Sandidge. In light of Sandidge’s age, however, the court was inclined to impose a lower sentence. The judge stated, “[m]y first tendency when I went through your file, and I’ve gone through it several times, was to deviate from the guidelines and go up. You’re 18 No. 14-1492 too old for that, Mr. Sandidge. I don’t want you to die in prison.” The district court then imposed its sentence, stating “it is the judgment of the court that the defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 92 months, to be consecutive to the term that he’s now facing in the state court on … another charge.” In determining whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence, courts are obligated to consider the 3553(a) factors. United States v. Nania, 724 F.3d 824, 830 (7th Cir. 2013); 18 U.S.C. § 3584. But courts need not make formal findings regarding each factor. Nania, 724 F.3d at 838; See also United States v. Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2009). The record must simply assure us that the court “thoroughly considered the statutory provisions.” Nania, 724 F.3d at 838. We only require express findings to the extent necessary to fulfill two purposes: “(1) enabling this court to meaningfully review the district court’s decision; and (2) responding to the defendant’s principal, nonfrivolous arguments.” Id. at 838 (internal quotations and citations omitted). On appeal, Sandidge does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of either the length of his sentence or its consecutive imposition. Sandidge argues, however, that the district court’s analysis of the 3553(a) factors applied only to the length of Sandidge’s incarceration. It did not apply, he argues, to the court’s decision to impose that sentence consecutively to Sandidge’s state term. Sandidge also contends that the court did not address his arguments for a concurrent sentence. Therefore, he claims, the district court made no findings regarding his request for a concurrent sentence, and thus committed procedural error. No. 14-1492 19 We review procedural challenges to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and we review substantive challenges for abuse of discretion. Nania, 724 F.3d at 838. Because Sandidge does not raise a substantive challenge, our review here is de novo. 5 The district court provided adequate findings to convince us that it considered the 3553(a) factors with respect to the sentence’s consecutive imposition. We have no reason to believe that the court intended for its analysis to apply only to the sentence’s length. As an initial matter, Sandidge’s only argument for a concurrent sentence was based on his contention that a withinGuidelines sentence would be excessive as applied to him. 6 As a result, Sandidge argued, his sentence should, “at the very least,” be imposed to run concurrently to his undischarged state term. His argument for a concurrent sentence was therefore dependent on the length of sentence that the court found to be reasonable and appropriate. The district court explicitly stated that the Guidelines range was reasonable in Sandidge’s case. In fact, the court repeatedly stated that it contemplated imposing a sentence above the Guidelines range, due to Sandidge’s recidivist behavior. Having found that the Guidelines range was appropriate, and not excessive, the district court necessarily reject- 5 The government asks us to apply the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, but because Sandidge does not raise a substantive challenge, the de novo standard is appropriate. 6 Because Sandidge’s 92-month sentence represented the low end of the Guidelines range, Sandidge necessarily argued that anything short of a below-Guidelines sentence would be excessive as applied to him. 20 No. 14-1492 ed Sandidge’s argument that “at the very least” his federal sentence should run consecutively to his state term. Because the court found that the Guidelines range was reasonable as applied to Sandidge, it had no need to seek “mitigation” of that sentence by imposing it to run concurrently with the unrelated state term. In addition, despite the court’s concerns with Sandidge’s recidivist behavior, and its consideration of an aboveGuidelines sentence, it imposed a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. That reinforces our conclusion that the district court considered (and rejected) Sandidge’s argument that a concurrent sentence was necessary to mitigate an otherwise “excessive” within-Guidelines sentence. The context of the district court’s 3553(a) analysis also confirms that the court intended its analysis to apply both to the length of sentence and to its consecutive imposition. Before reviewing the 3553(a) factors, the court heard argument from both Sandidge and the government regarding the imposition of a concurrent or consecutive sentence. So we have no doubt that the court was aware of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. And immediately following its review of the 3553(a) factors, the court imposed sentence. It did so by imposing the 92-month term and its consecutive run in the same sentence. That timing, combined with the court’s rejection of Sandidge’s below-Guidelines sentence request, convinces us that the court’s 3553(a) analysis applied equally to the imposition of a consecutive sentence and to the sentence’s length. Admittedly, the district court here did not expressly state that it considered Sandidge’s request for a concurrent sentence. Although we find no error in that omission, we enNo. 14-1492 21 courage district courts to include such express statements in the future. It is also a best practice for the court to specifically reference the Guidelines provision that it relies upon in imposing sentence. But in this case, even without such explicit statements, the highly experienced district judge’s analysis satisfied both of the requirements described in Nania: it provided adequate findings to permit meaningful review on appeal, and it responded to Sandidge’s principal arguments. Therefore, we find that the district court did not commit procedural error in imposing a consecutive sentence.