Opinion ID: 40802
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Guidelines Provisions

Text: 21 Under Booker, a sentence must account for more than just the applicable Guideline range. Section 3553(a) requires the court to consider the kinds of sentence available under the Guidelines as well as any pertinent policy statement. In the case at bar, the district court ignored Guidelines provisions relating to probation and physical injury. 22 First, the sentence deviates from a relevant advisory Guideline disallowing probation in Duhon's case. The Guidelines do not authorize a sentence of probation where the applicable Guideline range is in Zone C or D of the Sentencing Table. See U.S.S.G. §§ 5B1.1 cmt. n. 2, 5C1.1(f). Both Duhon's correct Guideline range and the range incorrectly used by the district court fell within Zone D. See U.S.S.G. § 5A. Thus, the probationary sentence varies, not only from the applicable Guideline range, but also from the kinds of sentence available under the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4). In such a situation, the court, at a minimum, should acknowledge that it is aware that probation would not ordinarily be available under the advisory Guidelines. 23 Second, the sentence diverges from a policy statement prohibiting the consideration of physical condition. The district court considered Duhon's back injury in imposing its sentence. Section 5H1.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines states that [p]hysical condition . . . is not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted. At the pre- Booker sentencing hearing, the court acknowledged that the Guidelines would not permit a downward departure for Duhon's physical condition. At the post- Booker hearing, however, the district court relied on Duhon's back injury without explaining its deviation from the advisory policy statement. We agree with the Sixth Circuit that a district court that relies on any factors which are deemed by the Guidelines to be prohibited or discouraged. . . [should] address these provisions and decide what weight, if any, to afford them in light of Booker.  Jackson, 408 F.3d at 305 n. 3 (6th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Selioutsky, 409 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.2005) (stating that the district court must consider the availability of departure authority before imposing a non-Guideline sentence). The court's reliance on Duhon's physical condition without addressing the relevant policy statement is especially troubling here since the court found that Duhon no longer sees a physician and does not take any prescription medications for his back injury. 4 24 The court's failure to appropriately take into account the Sentencing Guidelines is significant. It is not necessary for us to decide, however, whether this alone is sufficient to render Duhon's sentence unreasonable. The sentence also fails to adequately reflect the seriousness of Duhon's offense and inappropriately gives weight to the Guideline sentence of Duhon's codefendant.