Opinion ID: 1206802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Procedural and Substantive Components of Reasonableness Review

Text: Gall confirms that reasonableness review has both a procedural and substantive component. At the procedural stage, Gall provides five examples of potential errors by a sentencing court: (1) failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, [4] (2) treating the Guidelines as mandatory, (3) failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, (4) selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or (5) failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Id. at 597; ante at 189-90. If no significant procedural error is identified, a reviewing court then consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 597; ante at 189-90, 190-91. Gall emphasizes that substantive review is narrow: it is not for the Court of Appeals to decide de novo whether the justification for a variance is sufficient or the sentence reasonable. 128 S.Ct. at 602. Rather, reviewing courts must give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justify the extent of the variance. Id. at 598; see id. at 602 (same); ante at 190-91. Thus, for a sentence to be substantively unreasonable it must fall outside the broad range warranted by the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 174 (2d Cir.2008); ante at 191. With these principles in mind, I proceed to consider the reasonableness challenge in this case.