Opinion ID: 44571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence Imposed

Text: The government also argues that the district court erred in sentencing Grant below the recommended Guidelines range without stating its reasons in support of that decision. The court sentenced Grant to ten months–five months of imprisonment followed by five months of home custody–when the recommended range (for an Offense Level 14) was 15 to 21 months.12 Because we have already concluded that the district court’s calculation of the sentencing range was based on an improper calculation of the total loss amount, however, we need not address the 12 As an aside, we note that the district court judge imposed Grant’s sentence under the apparent misapprehension that he was sentencing Grant within the recommended Guidelines range. The judge stated “I see no grounds for departure” and then proceeded to sentence outside of the Guidelines range. R9 at 37. Over and above the court’s erroneous calculation of Grant’s sentence as discussed in the previous section, this fact alone would be sufficient grounds to vacate Grant’s sentence and remand his case, since we have made clear that the court’s duty to properly “consult” the guidelines cannot be based on an erroneous understanding of them. See Crawford, 407 F.3d at 1183 (“[B]ecause true consultation cannot be based on an erroneous understanding of the Guidelines, the district court erred in failing to consult properly the Guidelines.”); id. at 1179 (“A misinterpretation of the Guidelines by a district court effectively means that the district court has not properly consulted the Guidelines.”(citation and alteration omitted)). 20 government’s separate argument concerning the district court’s failure to state its reasons for a downward departure. The recommended range itself was based on a faulty calculation of the loss amount; that fact, standing alone, militates in favor of a remand, irrespective of the court’s decision to sentence outside of that range.