Opinion ID: 220321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Respond to Defense Arguments

Text: Freeman first contends that the District Court failed to directly respond to several of his arguments in support of a below-Guidelines sentence, including his physical 5 disabilities, his close ties with his family, the impact that the death of his two siblings had upon him, and the fact that his criminal history was nonviolent. This argument fails, as precedent makes clear that a district court‟s failure to respond to each and every section 3553 argument does not constitute procedural error warranting remand. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007) (concluding from district court‟s failure to respond to certain sentencing arguments that the district court “must have believed that there was not much more to say”); United States v. Olfano, 503 F.3d 240, 245 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding from district court‟s failure to respond to certain sentencing arguments that “the District Judge apparently determined that defendant‟s arguments were simply insufficient to warrant a below-Guidelines sentence”).1 2. Failure to Explain Why Guidelines Range Was Inadequate Freeman further contends that the District Court failed to explain why the range recommended by the Guidelines was inadequate, in light of section 3553‟s command that the court impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” This argument is meritless, as the District Court spoke at length about its reasons for imposing the sentence that it did. The District Court, moreover, was not required to specifically explain why the sentence that it selected was the lowest possible sentence that would satisfy the parsimony 1 We also note that defense counsel informed the District Court that “[t]here‟s nothing in my client‟s background that would justify or excuse any of this” (48a) and that the death of his sister was “not a justification for anything” (57a). Freeman similarly explained that the crime was “totally my fault” and not “my parents‟ with raising me.” (63a.) 6 provision. See United States v. Charles, 467 F.3d 828, 833 (3d Cir. 2006) (“To meet the requirements of the „Parsimony Provision,‟ he contends, the District Court should have noted why a low-end Guidelines-range sentence (37 months) was insufficient to meet § 3553(a)(2)‟s penological goals. By demanding that the Court assume the burden of proving that his sentence is not unreasonable, Charles attempts to flip the reasonableness requirement on its head.”). 3. Seizure of Drugs Finally, Freeman contends that the District Court erred in noting the effects that narcotics had on the victims of his conduct, as the drugs at issue were seized before they could reach users on the street. While Freeman is correct as a factual matter, in context it is clear that the District Court was speaking generally about the effects of the drug trade on victims. That the government successfully arrested Freeman and seized his drugs before they could reach the street hardly supports a plea for leniency.