Opinion ID: 1207983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Of the District Court's Mandate on Remand

Text: Following the Supreme Court's determination in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the Sentencing Guidelines were to be considered advisory and not mandatory, this Court formulated the rule in Crosby for plain error review of pre- Booker sentences. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 224-26 (2d Cir.2005) (discussing rationale and procedure for Crosby remand). Concluding that such a review requires a resolution of the issue of whether the sentence originally imposed is materially different from the sentence that would have been imposed under the Booker regime, we formulated the protocol now known as the Crosby remand to enable the District Court to decide the issue in the first instance. On such remand, District Judges are to re-examine sentences in light of the following: [A]ny of the errors in the procedure for selecting the original sentence ... would be harmless, and not prejudicial under plain error analysis, if the judge decides on remand, in full compliance with now applicable requirements, that under the post- Booker/Fanfan regime the sentence would have been essentially the same as originally imposed. Conversely, a district judge's decision that the original sentence would have differed in a nontrivial manner from that imposed will demonstrate that the error in imposing the original sentence was harmful and satisfies plain error analysis. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 118. Accordingly, the question to be resolved by the District Court is whether the challenged sentence is materially different from the one that the district court would have imposed with a correct understanding of federal sentencing law as now explained by the Supreme Court. Garcia, 413 F.3d at 224. If the District Court decides not to resentence, it should explain that decision on the record; if it decides that the sentence should be vacated, it must resentence in accordance with Booker, with an explanation. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 120. The explanation referred to in Crosby is required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), which provides in part that [t]he court, at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence. To sentence in compliance with Booker, the court is constrained to consider the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for (A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines... issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1)] ... .... (5) any pertinent policy statement(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2)] ...; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. However, all sentencing proceedings must commence with the District Court's calculation of the applicable Guidelines range, with the Guidelines as the starting point and the initial benchmark. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court must then consider all the § 3553(a) factors and then undertake an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Id. at 597. If a non-Guidelines sentence is indicated, the court must consider the extent of the deviation [from the Guidelines] and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. Id. Finally, [a]fter settling on the appropriate sentence, [the District Court] must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing. Id. (citation omitted).