Opinion ID: 552458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Explanation for Veteto's Sentence

Text: 15 As a general rule, a sentencing court need not explain why a particular sentence was imposed so long as the sentence was within the range specified by the Guidelines. See United States v. Alamin, 895 F.2d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Wellington v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 196, 112 L.Ed.2d 158 (1990). While we are inclined to agree with the district court that it should not have to state reasons for a sentence within the Guidelines' range, the same being a matter of discretion, Congress has decreed otherwise. Congress has specifically proclaimed that a sentencing court shall state the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range when the range exceeds 24 months. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(c)(1). When a sentencing court fails to comply with this requirement, the sentence is imposed in violation of law and is reviewable on appeal. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a)(1); United States v. Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir.1990).
16 The Government contends that, even if the district court's explanation is subject to review, the reason given was sufficient. The Government argues that Sec. 3553(c)(1)'s requirement that a reason be given is less exacting than the specific reason mandated when a judge departs from the guidelines, compare 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(c)(1) with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(c)(2) (requiring a specific reason), and the court's explanation that 200 months seem[ed] right was sufficient. We disagree. 17 Although we have previously acknowledged the difference between sections 3553(c)(1) and 3553(c)(2), see Parrado, 911 F.2d at 1572 (quoting United States v. Cervantes, 878 F.2d 50, 54 (2d Cir.1989)), there must exist some standards that define what constitutes a sufficient reason. Even if Sec. 3553(c)(1) requires a lesser explanation, not every purported reason will pass its muster. With this in mind, we note that all sentences should seem right to the sentencing judge; hence, a judge's view that a given sentence is appropriate, without more detail, is a truism and not an explanation. 3 18 Our only other decision involving Sec. 3553(c)(1) indicated that a sentencing court should--when stating its reasons for imposing a particular sentence as required by Sec. 3553(c)--tailor its comments to show that the sentence imposed is appropriate, given the factors to be considered as set forth in Sec. 3553(a). Parrado, 911 F.2d at 1572. 4 The explanation given in the case at bar fails to make any reference to those factors or to the specifics of Veteto's history, crimes, or situation. Consequently, the district court failed to give the required explanation and the sentence was imposed in violation of the law and must be vacated. 5