Opinion ID: 213536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Roles of District and Appellate Courts in Sentencing

Text: In sentencing a defendant, district courts follow a well-established three step process: First, the court calculates the applicable Guidelines range. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir.2009) (en banc). Second, it considers any motions for departure and, if granted, states how the departure affects the Guidelines calculation. Id. Third, it considers the § 3553(a) factors [6] and determines the appropriate sentence, which may vary upward or downward from the range suggested by the Guidelines. [7] Id. Our review of a criminal sentence proceeds in two stages. Id. We first review for procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If we find procedural error our preferred course is to remand the case for re-sentencing, without going any further. United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir.2010). In the absence of procedural error, we review for substantive reasonableness, and we will affirm [the sentence] unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided. Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567. At both the procedural and substantive stages, we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 217-18 (3d Cir.2008).