Opinion ID: 4541710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Consideration of the

Text: Sentencing Factors Jaycox raises an additional challenge to his sentence. Jaycox argues that the district court erred by failing to 12 UNITED STATES V. JAYCOX consider his proffered regional data regarding similarlysituated defendants, and instead focusing on “national parity,” when evaluating the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district court did not abuse its discretion in not giving definitive weight to Jaycox’s regional data in determining the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (requiring the court determine whether there is “significant procedural error” and then whether a sentence is substantively reasonable). First, we have recognized that “Congress’s primary goal in enacting [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)(6) was to promote national uniformity in sentencing.” United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273, 277 (3d Cir. 2006)). Second, and contrary to Jaycox’s contention, the record appears to show that the district court considered Jaycox’s sentencing arguments but ultimately determined they did not warrant a lower sentence in the light of other sentencing factors. Because the district court determined Jaycox’s sentence in view of the incorrect statutory and Guidelines ranges, however, the district court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was potentially affected and must be redone.