Opinion ID: 1241733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court's Disagreement with Hill's Guidelines Range

Text: Finally, the district court did not err in concluding the Guidelines range in this case was insufficient to accomplish the purpose of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). In Kimbrough v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), the Supreme Court recognized a district court does not abuse its discretion by determining the applicable Guidelines range results in a sentence greater than necessary to achieve § 3553(a)'s sentencing objectives in a particular case. Id. at 575. Hill's sentence presents the inverse of the situation in Kimbrough. The district court in Kimbrough determined the applicable Guidelines range resulted in a sentence greater than necessary to achieve § 3553(a)'s sentencing objectives, id. at 565. The district court in Hill's case determined the applicable Guidelines range resulted in a sentence insufficient to achieve § 3553(a)'s sentencing objectives. The district court's disagreement with the Guidelines range in Hill's case was clearly the product of considered and careful analysis. The sentencing transcript indicates the sentencing court thoughtfully grappled with the appropriate sentence, taking account of the facts of Hill's case, the impact of Hill's crime on the victim, the need to protect society, the concern Hill would repeat his crime and the need for deterrence, and the relative severity of Hill's crime in the overall scheme of federal sentencing. The district court determined, I find that under 3553(a) the guideline range here that is recommended is not appropriate given the total circumstances of this case when I compare and contrast them to all these other cases. Shortly thereafter, the court stated, I'm just convinced that the guidelines are wrong here, given the human effects here of a woman in prostitution exposed to health risk, sexually transmitted diseases, and she's turning over her proceeds to another person. Just as the district court in Kimbrough was within its discretion to determine the applicable Guidelines range was greater than necessary, we conclude the district court in Hill's case was within its discretion to determine Hill's Guidelines range was insufficient to achieve an appropriate sentence. The district court's sentencing calculation, selection, and explanation do not represent any significant procedural error.