Opinion ID: 3018776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overall Reasonableness of Sentence

Text: Even though we find that the District Court correctly applied the Guidelines, we must also examine whether the sentence it imposed is reasonable in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wilson argues that the District Court inadequately considered sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6), which requires the sentencing court to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” We disagree. First, Wilson notes that Bernard (the leader of the scheme) was sentenced to 63 months of incarceration, nine months fewer than the 72 months that Wilson was sentenced to serve. This fact is of little moment. Section 3553(a)(6) does not direct the sentencing court to avoid sentencing disparities between any two individuals found guilty of similar conduct. Rather, § 3553(a)(6) restricts itself to sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. Wilson and Bernard did not have similar criminal records. Wilson’s lengthy criminal record placed him in a criminal history category of VI, whereas Bernard’s significantly shorter record placed him in a criminal history category of II. Had Wilson’s criminal history been similar to Bernard’s, he would have qualified for an advisory range of 46-57 months incarceration, the maximum of which is less than the 63 months to which Bernard was sentenced. Second, Wilson argues that the District Court acted unreasonably by failing to 8 consider sentences imposed by federal courts in other jurisdictions. When Wilson’s counsel presented the District Court with a handful of examples at sentencing, the Court dismissed the comparison, noting that it could not account for what courts in other jurisdictions may do. Such dismissal was appropriate. Given that the District Court had no information on the facts of the other cases and that Wilson’s sentence fell well below the Guidelines recommendation, the District Court was reasonable in its unwillingness to consider discrepancies allegedly arising from this scattershot of other federal cases. Finally, Wilson argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is longer than the sentence he would have received had he been prosecuted in state court. He submits that under Pennsylvania law, his conduct would have resulted in a sentence of 27-33 months of incarceration. The District Court acted reasonably in finding this fact unpersuasive. Wilson notes that in Pennsylvania, he would have been punished for the crime of theft by deception and causing a loss of over $100,000. From this fact alone, it is apparent that Pennsylvania criminal law is markedly different from federal criminal law, under which bank fraud is differentiated from other forms of theft and crimes causing a loss of over $400,000 are punished more severely than are crimes causing a loss merely exceeding $100,000. The District Court was well within the bounds of reasonableness in determining that the comparison was inapt. Moreover, the disparities in sentencing that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are intended to reduce are disparities between sentences imposed under the provisions of the Guidelines, i.e., federal sentences. In view of the advisory function of the Guidelines, we 9 assume that the Guidelines advise on the parity of sentences which fall within the Guidelines’ range and that the “sentencing disparity” referred to in § 3553(a)(6) is relevant to a comparison of federal to federal sentences – not federal to state sentences – so long as the federal sentences fall within the Guidelines’ range.