Opinion ID: 2981205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to the Sentencing Phase

Text: Although Bugg raises a plethora of issues challenging his sentence, we need address only one: the district court’s decision to impose nearly the entire sentence to run consecutively to Bugg’s sentence for the Gas-N-Go robbery. We review sentences imposed by the district court for an abuse of discretion, evaluating them for both substantive and procedural reasonableness. United States v. Massey, 663 F.3d 852, 856 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). A sentence is considered substantively or procedurally unreasonable if the district court fails to calculate the Guidelines range properly, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to explain the chosen sentence adequately. Id. Specifically, “[w]hen a defendant raises a particular, nonfrivolous argument in seeking a lower sentence, the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendant’s argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it.” United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794, 803 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal alterations omitted). - 11 - No. 09-5882 United States v. Bugg Bugg argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the majority of Bugg’s sentence for the Western Auto robbery to run consecutively to, instead of concurrently with, his sentence for the Gas-N-Go robbery. Although the district court was obligated to impose the twentyfive-year mandatory-minimum sentence for his firearm conviction consecutively to other sentences, it retained the discretion to impose the remainder of the sentence to run concurrently. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c); United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 11 (1997). Bugg argued to the district court that the disparity between his total effective sentence (824 months) and sentences given to similarly situated defendants who are charged in one indictment (594-646 months) was unwarranted and fundamentally unfair and requested that the court use its discretion to correct the disparity by running the sentences concurrently to the greatest extent possible. Although the district court recognized that it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence, the record does not reflect that the court considered Bugg’s non-frivolous argument for a concurrent sentence and, if considered, its reasons for rejecting it. We therefore find the imposed sentence procedurally unreasonable. Because we reach this holding, we need not address Bugg’s remaining challenges to his sentence.