Opinion ID: 6500392
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Top-of-the-Guidelines Sentence

Text: Luton’s final argument is that the district court’s imposition of a top-of-theguidelines sentence was unreasonable because the district court “did not explain why it sentenced Luton to the high-end of the range.” Aplt. Br. at 25–27. Importantly, Luton does not dispute that his sentence falls within the applicable guidelines range, nor does he claim that the district court incorrectly calculated the range. He only argues that the district court did not adequately explain why it imposed a top-of-theguidelines sentence. Our review of a sentence “includes both a procedural component, encompassing the method by which a sentence was calculated, as well as a substantive component, which relates to the length of the resulting sentence.” United States v. Henson, 9 F.4th 1258, 1284 (10th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-6736 (U.S. Dec. 28, 2021). Luton asserts that his 108-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not explain why it chose to impose a sentence at the top of the range. Aplt. Br. at 25–27. This is a procedural reasonableness challenge. Henson, 9 F.4th at 1284 (explaining that review for procedural error entails “considering whether the district court committed any error in calculating or explaining the sentence”) (citations, brackets, and quotations omitted). 18 Appellate Case: 21-1285 Document: 010110711430 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 19 Because Luton failed to contemporaneously object to the district court’s explanation of its sentencing decision, we review Luton’s challenge for plain error. Id. at 1289–90; ROA, Vol. II at 178–79. Luton must show “(1) an error, (2) that is plain, which means clear or obvious under current law, and (3) that affects substantial rights—and, if he satisfies these criteria, we may, in our discretion, correct the error if (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. McGehee, 672 F.3d 860, 876 (10th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1117 (10th Cir. 2011)). We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in its explanation of Luton’s within-guidelines sentence. This court has repeatedly emphasized that when imposing a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range, “(1) the district court need provide only a general statement noting the appropriate guideline range and how it was calculated; (2) such statement need involve no ritualistic incantation to establish consideration of a legal issue or recitation of any magic words to prove that the court considered the various factors Congress instructed it to consider; and, more broadly, (3) [this court] will only step in and find error when the record gives [it] reason to think that [its] ordinary . . . presumption that the district court knew and applied the law is misplaced.” Henson, 9 F.4th at 1287 (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). In other words, the district court need not “specific[ally] expla[in] . . . a sentence falling within the Guidelines range.” United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir. 2007). 19 Appellate Case: 21-1285 Document: 010110711430 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 20 In Luton’s case, the district court clearly indicated that it had reviewed the PSR and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the nature and characteristics of the lottery scheme, the impact the crime had on S.O., the length and extent of Luton’s involvement, his lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse, and the need to deter Luton from committing similar criminal conduct. ROA, Vol. II at 152–57. The district court also acknowledged Luton’s request for a variant sentence but explained that a downward variance was unwarranted “when the history and characteristics of the defendant, as well as the nature and circumstances of this offense[,] are juxtaposed with the goals of sentencing, pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3553(a).” Id. at 170. The district court then found that a top-of-the guidelines sentence “reflect[s] the seriousness of this offense, and it is a sufficient, but not greater than necessary, sentence to achieve the objectives of sentencing.” Id. at 178. A more detailed sentencing explanation is not required because Luton does not dispute that he was sentenced within the applicable guidelines range. See Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d at 1202. And even if the district court inadequately explained its reasons for imposing the within-guidelines sentence, Luton has not attempted to show that any such error affected his substantial rights, as required to satisfy the demanding plain error standard. The district court did not err in imposing a top-of-the-guidelines sentence as its explanation went beyond the minimum level of detail required to establish its procedural reasonableness. 20 Appellate Case: 21-1285 Document: 010110711430 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 21