Opinion ID: 2978538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Treating the guidelines as mandatory

Text: Even if the district court did not err by considering, and not summarily rejecting, the guidelines score, the defendant argues that the district court gave undue weight to the guidelines because it treated them as mandatory. “In order for a defendant’s sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the district court cannot presume that the sentencing range recommended under the Guidelines is mandatory or even reasonable.” Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d at 582 (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50). In support of his argument, the defendant relies on the district court’s comment that there was “some room” to argue that the guidelines range should not be followed under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The defendant also points to the district court’s reasoning that the statutory factors of punishment reflecting the seriousness of the crime, deterrence, and need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities were met by following the guidelines range, as modified. The defendant also contends that by simply pointing to the guidelines range, the district court failed to make an “individualized assessment” of the circumstances of the defendant’s case. None of the defendant’s citations to the record show that the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory. Rather than demonstrating that the district court mechanistically followed the guidelines, the record instead reflects that the district court considered the defendant’s circumstances in great detail, and found that the factors of section 3553 aligned with the guidelines in several ways. Finding that an appropriate sentence under section 3553 falls within the guidelines 6 range is not inherently suspect, see Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 109 (noting that “the Commission’s recommendation of a sentencing range will ‘reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives.’” (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 350 (2007)), and the district court did not need to provide a greater explanation than it did to convince us that it understood the advisory nature of the guidelines. See United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 585 (6th Cir. 2008). In fact, the district court imposed a sentence below the range recommended by the guidelines. The court described the difference as a “variance,” which is not authorized by the guidelines, rather than a departure, which is allowed under the guidelines, further suggesting that it understood that the guidelines were not mandatory. See Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 2202-03 (2008) (describing the difference between a variance and a departure). The defendant has not shown any procedural error committed by the district court.