Opinion ID: 797185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Failed to Consider the Sentencing Guidelines as Advisory

Text: 30 We find that the district court erred in applying the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. In determining the sentence to be imposed, the district court must consider the advisory Guidelines range and all relevant factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865, 869 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir.2006); Jackson, 408 F.3d 301, 304 (6th Cir.2005) ([D]istrict courts are required to consider the applicable Guidelines sentencing range when arriving at a defendant's sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), but only as one factor of several laid out in § 3553(a).); Booker, 543 U.S. at 259, 125 S.Ct. 738 (Without the `mandatory' provision, the Act nonetheless requires judges to take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals). [T]he district court's decision to deny a Guideline-based departure ... is not reviewable by this Court so long as the district court was aware of and understood its discretion to make such a Guideline-based departure. McBride, 434 F.3d at 476; see also Jones, 445 F.3d at 868; United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 329 (6th Cir.2002). At the December 15, 2005 hearing, the district court noted that 31 as far as I understand Booker, obviously if it's within the guidelines, as I understand Booker, it's per se reasonable. But it doesn't mean that a sentence outside of the guidelines is per se unreasonable. 32 (J.A. 137-38) (emphasis added). This statement illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Booker; nothing in Booker suggests that a sentence within the sentencing guideline range is per se reasonable. The sentencing guidelines are to be consulted and appropriately taken into account, but a reasonable sentence requires consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. `A sentence within the Guidelines carries with it no implication that the district court considered the 3553(a) factors if it is not clear from the record.' United States v. Johnson, 467 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Foreman, 436 F.3d 638, 644). Absent [an] articulation on the record that the § 3553(a) factors were considered, we are unable to review Defendant's sentence for reasonableness, and we decline to find that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. Id. at 564; see also United States v. Cage, 458 F.3d 537 (6th Cir.2006). Therefore, the district court simply cannot assume that a sentencing Defendant within the sentencing guidelines is per se reasonable. 33 In the instant case, we find that the record indicates that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines. The district court concluded that it did not have authority to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory, sentencing Defendant at offense level ten. The district court was not bound to go to offense level ten because the sentencing guidelines are advisory. Booker, 543 U.S. at 259, 125 S.Ct. 738. Since the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory, the district court's sentence violated Booker. 34 Furthermore, the district court failed to state facts which support its sentence. The district court must articulate the reasons for the particular sentence imposed in order to enable this Court to engage in a meaningful reasonableness review of the sentence. Jones, 445 F.3d at 869. In the instant case, the list [of characteristics] provided by the district court, without any accompanying analysis, is insufficient to justify the sentence imposed, as it renders our reasonableness review impossible. Jackson, 408 F.3d at 305; see also United States v. Williams, 432 F.3d 621, 623-24 (6th Cir.2005) (affirming downward departure at sentencing where the district court followed Jackson, considered the applicable sentencing guidelines, and provided a detailed analysis in support of its decision to depart). On remand, the district court should use facts from the record to support its sentence.