Opinion ID: 1241733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Explanation of Hill's Sentence

Text: Hill first contends the district court committed procedural error by failing adequately to explain the chosen sentence. Gall sets forth the procedure to be followed in sentencing a criminal defendant. The district court should begin by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 596 (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). [T]he Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark [, but] [t]he Guidelines are not the only consideration[.] Id. The district judge should allow both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, and then should consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party. Id. The district judge must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. If he decides that an outside-Guidelines sentence is warranted, he must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. [It is] uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. After settling on the appropriate sentence, he must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing. Id. at 597 (citing Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203). In explaining the chosen sentence and analyzing the relevant § 3553(a) factors, a district court is not required to provide `a full opinion in every case,' but must `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. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). The district court in Hill's case provided ample explanation of its rationale for the sentence imposed. The court focused directly on the facts of Hill's case and the harm caused by Hill's conduct, making the following statements at sentencing: (1) [Hill's victim] is a real person, subjected to prostitution, controlled by [Hill], moving at least from Kansas to Missouri; (2) That begs the question about the amount and level of psychological control one must have in order for a woman to submit to prostitution and give you the money she receives from that conduct; (3) This woman [] is real. She's not a photograph. She's not something that was downloaded from the internet and just saved on a hard drive, as horrible as that is ...; and (4) I'm just convinced that the guidelines are wrong here, given the human effects here of a woman in prostitution exposed to health risk, sexually transmitted diseases, and she's turning over her proceeds to [Hill]. The district court further explained, under 18 U.S.C. [§ ] 3553(a), when I look at deterrence, the repetition of the activity and the fear that it will be repeated, and to protect the public from future crimes, and to avoid unwanted [sic] sentencing disparities, that a sentence of 51 months is an appropriate sentence to satisfy the statutory purpose of sentencing. The district court's explanation was more than enough to satisfy [this court] that he ha[d] considered the parties' arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. Robinson, 516 F.3d at 718 (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). The district court did not commit significant procedural error, much less plain error, in explaining Hill's sentence.