Opinion ID: 3065451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History and Characteristics of Edwards

Text: [7] Section 3553(a)(1) of Title 18 requires the district court to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant[.]” The Government contends that the district court gave short shrift to the similarity between Edwards’s previous theft crime in Arizona and the crimes he committed in Montana. A review of the record, however, shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing Edwards’s history and characteristics. The district court acknowledged several times that the Arizona felony Edwards committed was a very serious offense. The district court found that Edwards appeared in district court “a totally different person” than “the person who was somehow engaged in illegal conduct in Arizona” and was “convinced that Mr. Edwards has changed.” The district court focused on Edwards’s demeanor and mannerisms during allocution, observing that “I’ve been doing this long enough that I can tell, I think, when people are genuine . . . . I find . . . his statement, his allocution, to be very credible. I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that he’s going to engage in this again in the future.” [8] In short, the district court was aware of and weighed Edwards’s criminal history when fashioning the sentence. In its view, however, based on Edwards’s history and characteristics, the district court did not feel a sentence of incarceration was appropriate. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered Edwards’s history and circumstances, UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS 2465 relying on its “ ‘superior position’ to find the relevant facts and to ‘judge their import.’ ” Whitehead, 532 F.3d at 993.8