Opinion ID: 2776670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Open Court Explanation

Text: Zavala argues that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) by failing to adequately explain his sentence in open court. That statute requires the district court to state the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the [guidelines] range if the range, measured from the low end to the -3- high end, exceeds twenty-four months (as it did here for the range of 360 months to life imprisonment). See United States v. DávilaGonzález, 595 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2010). Our own case law makes clear that such an explanation need not be exhaustive or expressly touch on every point. See United States v. Zapata, 589 F.3d 475, 487 (1st Cir. 2009) (A sentencing court is not obliged . . . to specifically address all of the section 3553(a) factors in its explanation, nor to give each of the factors equal prominence in its determination. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the district court articulated its reasoning, specifically citing the activities giving rise to the leadership enhancement and the defendant's actions in obstructing justice. The court also stated that it considered all of the relevant factors, and [t]he fact that the court imposed a within-the-range sentence helps . . . reach this conclusion: such a sentence requires less explanation than one that varies from the [guidelines range]. Clogston, 662 F.3d at 592. Therefore, the district court's open-court explanation was sufficient, and there was no procedural error in this regard.