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

Heading: The Presumptions Proscribed and Review Standard Mandated by Gall and Kimbrough

Text: In reviewing the reasonableness of the challenged sentence, two rulings in Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445, are particularly instructive. First, while a district court is statutorily obliged to consider the Guidelines in imposing sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), it commits constitutional error if it presumes the reasonableness of a Guidelines sentence and fails to determine for itself the sentence warranted by the totality of factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 596-97; ante at 189. Second, a reviewing court is constitutionally prohibited from applying a presumption of unreasonableness to a non-Guidelines sentence. Id. at 597; ante at 190. These twin rulings caution that, whatever concerns reviewing courts may have about affording district courts leeway to impose non-Guidelines sentences, particularly based on general rather than case-specific concerns, we cannot, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, pronounce rules or impose burdens that effectively place a thumb on the scales in favor of Guidelines sentences. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 577 (Scalia, J., concurring). Specifically, we cannot demand `extraordinary' circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 595; ante at 190-91. We cannot use the percentage of a departure [from the Guidelines] as the standard for determining the strength of the justifications required for a specific sentence. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 595; see ante at 190-91. We cannot prohibit non-Guidelines sentences based on a sentencing judge's disagreement with Commission policy determinations. See Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 570; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (observing that district courts may consider arguments that the Guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations); ante at 191. Finally, although we may (1) reasonably expect a major departure [to] be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one, Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 597, and (2) conduct closer review of a justification when the sentencing judge varies from the Guidelines based solely on the judge's view that the Guidelines range fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations even in a mine-run case, Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 575 (internal quotation marks omitted), the standard of review remains the same in every case. As Gall makes clear, the abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of all sentencing decisionswhether inside or outside the Guidelines range. 128 S.Ct. at 596 (emphasis added). [3]