Opinion ID: 2978251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Edrington’s Sentence

Text: Edrington argues that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to explain why it rejected his argument about the disparity of his and his codefendants’ sentences. This court reviews the district court’s sentencing decision for reasonableness. United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005). A sentence where the district court considered a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). To determine the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we ensure that the district court “‘adequately explain[ed] the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.’” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 580 (quoting United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)) (alteration in original). “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). In the instant case, the district court heard Edrington’s argument, asked for a response from the government, and notified Edrington that it would take his argument into account. The district court met its burden under Rita by following the correct sentencing procedures and adequately explaining its basis for the sentence. Thus, the district court sentenced Edrington reasonably. AFFIRMED.