Opinion ID: 1316754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Alternative Variance Sentence

Text: As to the alternative sentence, we conclude that another Gall procedural error occurred because the district court failed to adequately explain its variance from the advisory Guidelines range to its chosen sentence in a way that allows for any meaningful appellate review. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597 (stating that a district court commits procedural error by, inter alia, failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range). [9] Here, the district court, for the second time, failed to give any explanation of its reasons for imposing a sentence of 60 months' probation (with 6 months' home detention). After imposing its sentence, the district court did proceed to list certain § 3553(a) factors. So far, so good. However, the district court then gave no reasoning or indication of what facts justified such a significant variance from the advisory Guidelines range under its alternative sentence. See Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1190, 1191 n. 8 (stating that a district court need not discuss each § 3553(a) factor, but `must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented' and, where it imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines range, will explain why it has done so (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597)); Agbai, 497 F.3d at 1230 (`[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' (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468)). Although the district court stated that it would exercise its discretion to impose the same sentence even if its § 5K1.1 departure was erroneous, it simply failed to explain its reasons for why it would do so in a way that allows for meaningful appellate review and promotes the perception of fair sentencing. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. Thus, there is also procedural error under Gall in the district court's alternative sentence of a Booker variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 78 to 97 months' imprisonment to the imposed sentence of 60 months' probation (with 6 months' home detention). For example, the district court offered no explanation or reasoning of how a sentence of 60 months' probation (with 6 months' home detention) for an individual who pled guilty to knowingly playing an active and crucial supervisory role in a massive $1.4 billion fraud for at least five years reflected the seriousness of the offense or the nature and circumstances of the crime. The district court did not state or explain in any way why it rejected the government's argument that, notwithstanding Livesay's timely assistance, Livesay should receive some sentence of significance in this $1.4 billion fraud scheme because he was a key player, a significant cog, in the operation of this fraud at HealthSouth for a number of years. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468 (Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence,. . . the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments.). Furthermore, as this Court noted in Martin, the legislative history of § 3553 reveals that Congress viewed deterrence as `particularly important in the area of white collar crime.' Martin, 455 F.3d at 1240 (citation omitted). However, the district court provided nothing more than a conclusory statement that a variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 78 to 97 months' imprisonment to the ultimate sentence of 60 months' probation (with 6 months' home detention) satisfied Congress's important concerns of deterrence. The district court did summarily list twelve other individuals convicted in the HealthSouth fraud and their respective sentences, which ranged from 24 months' probation to 60 months' imprisonment. However, the district court gave no description of the criminal conduct committed by these twelve defendants, much less any explanation of how Livesay's criminal conduct was similar to that of the co-conspirators who received probation. Indeed, among the sentences noted by the district court was the sentence of 5 months' imprisonment imposed on Emery Harris, who was, according to Livesay's PSI, the Assistant Controller of Finance at the same time that Livesay was the Assistant Controller of Accounting. Livesay's PSI states that Livesay instructed Harris to manipulate HealthSouth's books and records. The district court also noted that Weston Smith, the HealthSouth Controller from March 2000 through August 2001, received 27 months' imprisonment. However, at sentencing, the district court also did not offer any comparison of Harris's or Smith's conduct to Livesay's to explain why it imposed a lesser sentence on Livesay. In sum, the district court's list of sentences received by other defendants involved in the HealthSouth fraud provides no indication or explanation as to how Livesay's sentence serves the needs described in § 3553(a)(6). In contrast, the district court in Gall discussed with the government at sentencing the circumstances of two of Gall's codefendants who had already been sentenced and, specifically, whether they also had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 599. The district court and the government also discussed another codefendant who engaged in comparable conduct, but had several circumstances that distinguished him from the defendant Gall. See id. at 600. The Supreme Court was able to determine from this colloquy that the district court had considered the needs reflected in § 3553(a)(6) and ascertain why the district court had imposed a lesser sentence on Gall than these other codefendants received. See id. While we do not mean to imply that such a colloquy is necessary in every case, we reference the sentencing in Gall as an example of what type of record evidence aids appellate courts in assessing whether the sentencing court considered the § 3553(a) factors and why it imposed the chosen sentence. Therefore, even though the district court stated that it would exercise its discretion to impose the same sentence even if its § 5K1.1 departure was erroneous, it committed Gall procedural error by failing to adequately explain why it would do so in order to allow for meaningful appellate review. Id. at 597.