Opinion ID: 180585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jean Sonnenberg’s Sentence

Text: With a criminal history of I, a total offense level of 38, and an advisory guideline range of 235 to 293 months, Jean Sonnenberg was sentenced to 235 months in prison. While she Nos. 09‐2834, 09‐2854, 09‐2912, 09‐3565, and 09‐3589 Page 7 acknowledged the seriousness of her offense, she argued that the district court should consider her argument that her part in the conspiracy was driven by financial necessity – her husband Bruce was an unemployed crack addict and an alcoholic, and she was motivated to provide financially for her family. Jean Sonnenberg argues that the district court committed procedural error by not taking into account the § 3553(a) factors when imposing her sentence. She challenges the reasonableness of the sentence by arguing that the judge should have imposed a shorter sentence in light of her traumatic personal history of poverty, physical and sexual abuse, and alcoholism; her lack of a criminal record; and a report from a forensic social worker detailing her personal history of victimization and abuse as well as information about her Native American tribe and reservation. Jean Sonnenberg’s procedural error argument is without merit. It is clear both from the sentencing transcripts and the written statement of reasons that the judge properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The judge explicitly acknowledged her history of extreme poverty and abuse, her alcoholism, her lack of a criminal record, and her role in the conspiracy. He responded directly to her contention that she had taken part in the conspiracy to support her children and to ensure that they did not experience the same poverty she had experienced. “Her logic,” the judge stated, “I guess, could be construed as commendable if it were even close to being the truth. In fact . . . I believe she used and emotionally damaged her children rather than . . . protect them, really all for money.” J. Sonnenberg Sent. Tr. 15‐16. The judge rejected the proposed 120‐month sentence as inadequate only after extensively discussing her personal background, as well as her lack of a criminal record, the mitigating circumstances included in her sentencing memorandum, and her request for a below‐guideline sentence. The transcript and the subsequent statement of reasons show that the judge considered the § 3553(a) factors and had a reasoned basis for the sentence he imposed. Jean Sonnenberg argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the court did not take into account mitigating arguments such as her psychiatric problems and alcohol abuse. But the judge did take these factors into account, both at sentencing and in his written statement of reasons. The judge recounted that she “has abused alcohol and drugs for the majority of her life. She’s gone through numerous drug and alcohol treatment programs. Obviously they didn’t work.” Id. at 16. In his written statement of reasons, the judge provided further discussion of these issues: “The defendant’s lack of remorse for her crimes or the trauma she has caused her children is of great concern. She appears to be very immature in her decision making and behavior but sophisticated enough to operate a large scale drug conspiracy. She has abused alcohol and drugs the majority of her life. She has been afforded numerous drug/alcohol treatment programs.” Such statements about the defendant’s personal characteristics show the judge’s attention to and consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. The explanations were sufficient, and the sentencing court committed no error in considering but rejecting Jean Sonnenberg’s arguments for a below‐guideline sentence. Nos. 09‐2834, 09‐2854, 09‐2912, 09‐3565, and 09‐3589 Page 8