Opinion ID: 171334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Explaining the Sentence

Text: Mr. Martinez-Barragan also claims that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain the basis for its sentence. A district court must explain its reasons for imposing a sentence. United States v. Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d 1109, 1116 (10th Cir.2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). When the defendant makes a nonfrivolous argument for leniency, the district court must somehow indicate that [it] did not `rest on the guidelines alone, but considered whether the guideline sentence actually conforms, in the circumstances, to the statutory factors.' United States v. Jarrillo-Luna, 478 F.3d 1226, 1230 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d at 1117). The court must provide only a general statement of its reasons, United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 113, 169 L.Ed.2d 80 (2007), and need not explicitly refer to either the § 3553(a) factors or respond to every argument for leniency that it rejects in arriving at a reasonable sentence. Jarrillo-Luna, 478 F.3d at 1229; United States v. A.B., 529 F.3d 1275, 1289 (10th Cir.2008) (noting that when the district court adheres to the advisory Guidelines range, § 3553(c) does not require a particularized analysis of the statutory factors), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ 2008 WL 4189667, at  (2008). A sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is a functional rejection of the defendant's request for a below-Guidelines sentence. Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d at 1115. In Sanchez-Juarez, the district court heard defendant's arguments for a downward variance, noted that it had reviewed the PSR's factual findings, considered the Guidelines applications, and cited the defendant's offense conduct. Id. But we observed that, at a minimum, a sentencing court must `state its reasons for imposing a given sentence.' Id. at 1116 (quoting United States v. Rose, 185 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir.1999)). The sentencing court in Sanchez-Juarez failed to meet this minimum requirement, as it gave no reasons for the sentence it imposed and did not mention the § 3553(a) factors at all. Id. at 1115. The district court's conduct in this case is strikingly different from that in Sanchez-Juarez. As noted previously, the district court clearly considered the § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Mr. Martinez-Barragan. It addressed Mr. Martinez-Barragan's arguments that his criminal history score exaggerated his future dangerousness and that he entered the country in order to provide for his family. The court did not cite specific subsections of § 3553(a), but it is not required to do so. [3] However, the facts and circumstances that it did consider, see supra Part II(A)(1)(b), are plainly relevant to many of the statutory factors, including the nature of the offense and the history of the defendant; the need for the sentence to deter future criminal conduct, protect the public from the defendant, and provide the defendant with treatment; and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2), (6). In fact, we are able to confidently conclude that the district court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory, precisely because it properly explained the basis for its sentence. In sum, the district court has, at the very least, satisfied the requirements of § 3553(c). Cf. A.B., 529 F.3d at 1290 n. 18 (where district court entertain[ed] rather extensive briefing and arguments on whether to vary and clearly and expressly identified [the] issues that would affect its decision ... before it decided to adhere to the advisory Guidelines range it arguably may have exceeded the law's requirements).