Opinion ID: 213536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negroni's Sentence

Text: The government argues that Negroni's sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not give meaningful consideration to the factors that called for a significant prison sentence. [9] (Gov. Br. at 47.) Negroni responds that, although the Court did not explicitly rely on all the § 3553(a) factors, it weighed the totality of the factors . . . giving them meaningful consideration, and had no duty to `discuss and make findings as to each of the . . . factors [because] the record makes clear [it] took the factors into account in sentencing.' [10] (Negroni Br. at 54 (quoting Tomko, 562 F.3d at 568).) Again, our review is frustrated because, while the District Court individually identified each § 3553(a) factor, it did not discuss some of them and, as to those it did discuss, it did not explain how they justified the frankly dramatic downward variance it gave. The insufficiency of the explanation prevents us from judging whether the Court gave meaningful consideration to the relevant factors and is itself procedural error. In addition, to the extent the District Court's lenient sentence of Negroni was influenced by the government's assertion that Hall was more culpable than Negroni, that too is procedural error. We discuss each of those problems in turn.