Opinion ID: 3039407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The government first asserts that the district court erred by failing to consult the guidelines in fashioning its sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005) (requiring sentencing courts in the advisory guidelines regime -3- to nonetheless consider the appropriate guidelines range before imposing a sentence). This assertion is directly contradicted by the record. The court referenced the fact that Feemster’s guidelines range was 360 months in the March 10, 2004 sentencing hearing. Moreover, in its Statement of Reasons for the sentence, the court specifically determined the guidelines range to be 360 months to life. We therefore find the insinuation that the district court did not know Feemster’s guidelines range wholly without merit. We now turn to whether the district court’s imposition of a ten-year sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 766 (2005) (directing appellate courts to review the sentences of district courts imposed under the advisory guidelines system for “unreasonableness” with regard to the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). Booker requires courts to fashion an appropriate sentence, considering: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to advance institutional integrity, provide deterrence, protect the public, and rehabilitate the defendant; and the kinds of sentences available, including the guidelines range. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We note that while the deviation from the guidelines in this case is large, it is not unique. In United States v. Rogers, 423 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2005), our court affirmed a 360-month sentence for a defendant with a guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. In United States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2005), a divided panel affirmed a 240-month sentence when the guidelines called for 177 to 191 months. Lastly, in United States v. Christenson, 403 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2005), opinion vacated and district court judgment aff’d without opinion en banc by an equally divided court, 424 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), the district court departed from a 240-month sentence to a 60-month sentence. Thus, large variances from guidelines sentences are not unprecedented. -4- Moreover, the guidelines themselves have recognized that the career offender enhancement can often result in a gross overstatement of a defendant’s criminal history. See 4A1.3(b)(3) (permitting a one-category departure for defendants who, by virtue of the career offender enhancement, have a criminal history category that overrepresents the seriousness of their past offenses). Our court has done the same, albeit in pre-Booker jurisprudence. In United States v. Greger, 339 F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2003), a panel considered the extent to which a sentencing court could depart for a career offender defendant. The court noted that the career offender enhancement raises both the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category. Because the enhancement raised both ends of a defendant’s sentencing matrix, the court held that a departure based on the enhancement’s overstatement of the defendant’s criminal history could affect the same. Thus, the court permitted “career offender-based” downward departures that lowered both the offense level and the criminal history of the defendant. Greger, 339 F.3d at 671; see also United States v. Hutman, 339 F.3d 773, 775-77 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing the availability of downward departures for defendants whose sentencing ranges reflect an overstated criminal history due to the career offender enhancement). For the reasons stated above, we reject the government’s position at oral argument that any variance from the guidelines sentence would be unreasonable. On the basis of the record before us, however, we are reluctant to affirm the sentence in this case. Further analysis is required to support the variance. At sentencing, the government asked the court to specify which § 3553(a) factors it was relying upon, but the court simply stated that it already had, appropriately referencing the impact of the defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor. We agree that the history and characteristics of the defendant are appropriate considerations here, particularly because the defendant’s guidelines range more than tripled based on acts committed while a juvenile. Accord United States v. Senior, 935 F.2d 149, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1991). Booker mandates that the sentencing court go further, and consider all factors enumerated in § 3553(a). We have often recognized that we defer to the district -5- court’s superior position with respect to sentencing decisions. See, e.g., Rogers, 423 F.3d at 829 (noting that post-Booker unreasonableness review “‘is akin to . . . abuse of discretion review’” (quoting United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir. 2005)). That said, we have also stressed that, in the wake of Booker, a court maintains a duty to explain its reasons for the sentence imposed with some degree of specificity. United States v. Engler, 422 F.3d 692, 696-97 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we remand the matter for imposition of sentence following more explicit and thorough consideration of all factors enumerated in § 3553(a).3