Opinion ID: 3168136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant’s sentencing challenge

Text: The imposition of a sentence may be challenged for procedural error as well as for substantive unreasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The appellant challenges his sentence in both respects. 5
If a procedural objection was timely made before the district court, then the resulting sentence is subject to review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985, 1033-34 (D.C. Cir. 2010). If such an objection was not timely made before the district court, then our review is only for plain error. Id at 1034. The appellant asserts that abuse-of-discretion review is appropriate in this case. The Government counters that any procedural error should be subject to plain error review because the appellant “found no fault” with the district court proceedings while they were ongoing. It is not necessary to resolve which standard is appropriate in this case, however, as the appellant has failed to identify any procedural error that would constitute an abuse of discretion, much less a plain error. It is a procedural error for a district court to premise a sentence upon a clearly erroneous fact. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In this case, the appellant argues his sentencing was procedurally deficient because “the reasons given to support the above range re-sentence were not supported by the facts.” Specifically, the appellant argues he was required to spend a portion of his supervised release in a halfway house only if “he had no suitable location to reside at when released”; “the commitment order incorrectly reflected the sentence concerning the halfway house requirement”; and “the events that flowed from this halfway house dispute became the eventual basis” for his sentence. During his second sentencing hearing, the district court said that: 6 The condition of supervised release is that you spend six months in a halfway house or transitional housing at the discretion of the probation office if it is available and needed. As the Government acknowledges, the words “and needed” were omitted from the district court’s later-written judgment. Nonetheless, the district court in its written statement of reasons accompanying the appellant’s last sentencing hearing explained why, in its view, the appellant needed the halfway house, notwithstanding the availability of alternative accommodations: The Court ... had ordered six months in a halfway house or transitional housing because of a lack of a place to go upon [the appellant’s] release from the Bureau of Prisons, but also because the Court knew [the appellant] and knew his speed with which he gets very angry. And between the time he got out of jail and the time the halfway house became available, his compliance with the terms of his release were such that it made the Court very concerned. Any error or omission in the district court’s earlier written judgment is therefore beside the point; far from proceeding upon the basis of “clearly erroneous” facts, the district court acknowledged the appellant’s contention that he should have been excused from the halfway house requirement and explained why, in keeping with the court’s intended sentence, he would not be excused from it.
The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Whether an 7 above-Guidelines sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion must be determined with “due deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors, on [the] whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. Those factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; [and] (2) the need for the sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner....” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court must decide whether to defer to the district court’s decision bearing in mind that the § 3553(a) factors that district courts must consider at sentencing are vague, open-ended, and conflicting; different district courts may have distinct sentencing philosophies and may emphasize and weigh the individual § 3553(a) factors differently; and every sentencing decision involves its own set of facts and circumstances regarding the offense and the offender .... It will be the unusual case when an appeals court can plausibly say that a sentence is so unreasonably high or low as to constitute an abuse of discretion by the district court. 8 United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The transcript of the district court’s fourth and final sentencing hearing and the court’s written justification for the above-Guidelines term of imprisonment indicate that the district court took into account the appellant’s specific violations of the terms of his release, his challenge to the requirement that he report to a halfway house, his professed contrition, and factors indicating his contrition was insufficient to ensure “a lesser sentence would fulfill the goals of sentencing and supervision.” Notwithstanding the additional hardship imposed by a longer time in prison, the district court’s simultaneous reduction in appellant’s term of supervised release indicates the court was indeed seeking to balance the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly as regards “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” and “the need for the sentence imposed ... to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant[] and ... to provide the defendant with ... other correctional treatment” in the form of angermanagement counseling. There is nothing in the record, therefore, that indicates the district court abused its discretion in the sentence here under review.