Opinion ID: 1254641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether There Was Significant Procedural Error

Text: Battiest first argues the district court procedurally erred by insufficiently addressing the sentencing criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the letters and arguments Battiest submitted prior to sentencing, and the reasons why its sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary. We disagree. We presume that `district judges know the law and understand their obligation to consider all of the § 3553(a) factors.' Gray, 533 F.3d at 943 (quoting United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2491, 171 L.Ed.2d 780 (2008)). Thus, we have a held `[a] mechanical recitation of the § 3553(a) factors is unnecessary ... particularly when a judge elects simply to apply the advisory guideline range to a particular case.' United States v. Zastrow, 534 F.3d 854, 855 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir.2008)). The Supreme Court [has also] acknowledged that `when a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.' Gray, 533 F.3d at 944 (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). Thus, [w]here a sentencing judge imposes a sentence within the advisory guideline range, `[c]ircumstances may well make clear' that the judge believed the case was typical, and `rest[ed] his decision upon the Commission's own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence.' Id. (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). Applying these standards, the district court did not commit a procedural error in this case. The sentencing record demonstrates the district court had at its disposal the PSR, the objections to the PSR, the sentencing memoranda, and the letters submitted on Battiest's behalf. Those documents addressed the § 3553 factors, Battiest's life history, and the parties' recommendations for sentences that they considered sufficient but not greater than necessary. The district court also heard oral argument on these issues from the parties at sentencing. Taken together then, the district court had significant exposure to the sentencing issues Battiest claims it failed to adequately consider. Further, it is evident from the record that the district court examined those materials and considered both the parties' arguments. This was especially apparent given that the district court ruled on at least one of the issues in Battiest's favor. Finally, we note that not only did the district court find that a lower advisory range was appropriate, but it sentenced Battiest at the very bottom of the Guidelines range. In doing so, the district court stated it was sentencing Battiest to such a term because it had decided to sentence him to supervised release for life, indicating the district court considered Battiest's particular case and circumstances. For those reasons, the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing.