Opinion ID: 47014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction over Reasonableness

Text: 5 Because Cifuentes-Prado’s sentences were within the correctly-calculated guidelines range, the government contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review the reasonableness of Cifuentes-Prado’s sentences. We disagree. First, post-Booker, this Court repeatedly has reviewed sentences within the guidelines range for unreasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. Talley, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-11353, 2005 WL 3235409, at -4 (11 th Cir. Dec. 2, 2005); United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11 th Cir. 2005); United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11 th Cir. 2005). Second, although Booker excised the standards of review in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), the Supreme Court explained that “the [Federal Sentencing] Act continues to provide for appeals from sentencing decisions (irrespective of whether the trial judge sentences within or outside the Guidelines range in the exercise of his discretionary power under § 3553(a)),” and cited 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).1 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, ___, 125 S. Ct. 1 Specifically, § 3742(a) provides a defendant may appeal his sentence if that sentence: (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a greater fine or term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release than the maximum established in the guideline range, or includes a more limiting condition of probation or supervised release under section 3563(b)(6) or (b)(11) than the maximum established in the guideline range; or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing 6 738, 765 (2005) (instructing appellate courts to review a sentence for “unreasonableness” in light of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)). Although the Supreme Court in Booker did not identify which provision of § 3742(a) provided for appeals for “unreasonableness,” we conclude that a postBooker appeal based on the “unreasonableness” of a sentence, whether within or outside the advisory guidelines range, is an appeal asserting that the sentence was imposed in violation of law pursuant to § 3742(a)(1). See United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 & n.3 (8 th Cir. 2005) (holding that Booker did not alter the rule that a district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is unreviewable, but noting that, after Booker, the court will “review a defendant’s argument that even a sentence within the advisory guideline range is ‘unreasonable’ with regard to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and an unreasonable sentence would be imposed ‘in violation of law’ within the meaning of § 3742(a)”) (citation omitted). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction under § 3742(a)(1) to review sentences for unreasonableness.