Opinion ID: 1316754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court's Post-Gall Duties at Sentencing

Text: After the Supreme Court's decisions in Booker and Gall, the district courts are still required to correctly calculate the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir.2008); see also Martin, 455 F.3d at 1235; United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir.2005). `[A]fter giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party.' Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1189-90 (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 596). Gall also instructs that the district court `must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.' Id. at 1190 (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597). If the district court decides that a sentence outside of the Guidelines is warranted, it `must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.' Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597) (emphasis omitted). In addition, Gall admonishes that the district court must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (stating that a district court at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (discussing § 3553(c)). The Supreme Court in Rita recognized that the requirement that a district court explain the reasons for its chosen sentence reflects sound judicial practice because [c]onfidence in a judge's use of reason underlies the public's trust in the judicial institution and a statement of the judge's reasoning helps provide the public with the assurance that creates that trust. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. The length and amount of detail of the judge's reasoning required depends on the circumstances. Id. A statement of reasons for a criminal sentence is particularly important. Id. While a sentencing judge is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors, United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir.2005), `[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority,' United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). Generally, when sentencing within the advisory Guidelines range, the district court is not required to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by the Sentencing Commission. See id. (citing Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). However, if a party requested a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, the district court will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. Further, Rita explained that [w]here the judge imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines, the judge will explain why he has done so. Id. Subsequent to Rita and Gall, this Court explained in Pugh that a district court need not discuss each Section 3553(a) factor, although '[w]here the judge imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines, the judge will explain why he has done so.' Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191 n. 8 (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468) (alterations in original).