Opinion ID: 4582865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Lawless’s Invalidated 260-Month Sentence

Text: Mr. Lawless asserts the district court procedurally erred because it “anchor[ed],” his current sentence in his previous invalidated sentence. Aplt. Br. at 29. He says that the prior 240-month sentence was “the first thing the judge mentioned as a point that had ‘merit’ and that he took ‘into consideration’ in deciding to grant the Government an upward variance.” Id. We disagree with this characterization. As the government points out, “[t]he district court began the sentencing hearing by calculating an advisory guideline sentence of 60 months, to which the parties agreed.” Aple. Br. at 7; rec., vol. V at 29-30. And again, after the government argued for a 240-month sentence, the court reiterated that “with this arson conviction, we have a guideline sentence of 60 months.” Rec., vol. V at 34. The court said it had “never quadrupled a guideline sentence” and challenged the government to justify its recommended sentence in light of Mr. Lawless’s new conviction for arson: [H]ow do you respond to the explicit argument that 240 months, given the new guideline sentence of this count as opposed to what the guideline range was for the prior count, which is vacated, and . . . that is the new terrain you’re dealing with. I agree with you, the facts have not changed . . . But legally a lot has changed, and one of those changes is that because the prior conviction on the 924(c) count was vacated, and we’re now resentencing on a wholly different count, which has a significantly different guideline range, that it would open up the argument that in this context, on this charge, with this 6 guideline sentence of 60 months, 240 months, a quadrupling of that amount is a substantively unreasonable sentence . . . Id. at 35 (emphasis added). Moreover, when explaining its ruling, the court emphasized “that a guideline sentence in this case would be lower than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing and I will instead impose a sentence above the guideline sentence.” Id. at 85. These statements show the court was fully cognizant of, and anchored its analysis in, the guideline sentence of sixty months. As such, the court did not commit a procedural error.