Opinion ID: 1443071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burton's Sentence

Text: Burton's sentence was procedurally sound. The district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range for Burton. The district court considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors and expressly imposed a sentence that was no greater than necessary to achieve sentencing objectives. The district court properly considered Burton's rehabilitation after her initial arrest and before her indictment. See id. at 600-01 (Compared to a case where the offender's rehabilitation occurred after he was charged with a crime, the District Court here had greater justification for believing [the defendant's] turnaround was genuine, as distinct from a transparent attempt to build a mitigation case.). The district court adequately explained Burton's sentence with sufficient justifications for the downward variance. Burton's sentence was also substantively reasonable. Although the district court varied from a term of imprisonment to probation, [o]ffenders on probation are nonetheless subject to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their liberty. Id. at 595. We emphasize that the district court presented persuasive reasons for the variance in this case. See United States v. McFarlin, 535 F.3d 808, 809-11, No. 07-1957, 2008 WL 2875830, at  (8th Cir. July 28, 2008) (affirming a sentence of probation based upon the unique facts of the case). Even though Burton's rehabilitation only came after an encounter with law enforcement, her rehabilitation appears genuine, and she is a positive contributor to society through her extraordinary work with persons with disabilities. Id. at , 811 (Post-arrest rehabilitation must be of an extraordinary nature outside the heartland of cases and not already accounted for by the guidelines's recommendations. (quotation omitted)). Although Burton's variance was significant, the district court correctly calculated and carefully reviewed the Guidelines range . . . [and] necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted disparities. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 599; see Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 573-74 (As we explained in Booker, however, advisory Guidelines combined with appellate review for reasonableness and ongoing revision of the Guidelines in response to sentencing practices will help to `avoid excessive sentencing disparities.' These measures will not eliminate variations between district courts, but our opinion in Booker recognized that some departures from uniformity were a necessary cost of the remedy we adopted.) (citation omitted). The district court imposed a reasonable sentence and committed no abuse of discretion.