Opinion ID: 2980841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Imposition of the Maximum Advised Sentence

Text: The district court imposed a sentence at the top of the advisory range. Pardue argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. He asserts that, given his efforts to turn his life around and accept responsibility for his actions, as well as the “relative lack of pecuniary loss” resulting from his offense, the district court must have given unequal weight to the relevant sentencing factors or it would have rendered a more lenient sentence. While a sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the district court gives unreasonable weight to a particular factor, United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005), a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is afforded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). The defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption on appeal. United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 328 (6th Cir. 2009). Pardue has not shown that the district court weighed the sentencing factors in an unreasonable manner. As an initial matter, we presume that the district court reviewed all of the information provided by Pardue, the Government, and the probation officer before it imposed a sentence. See United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 941 (6th Cir. 2006) (absent evidence to the contrary, sentencing court presumed to have reviewed and considered all materials presented to it). 9 What is more, at the sentencing hearing, the district court heard live testimony; reviewed aspects of the PSR on the record; read a letter in support of Pardue into the record; discussed the importance of deterrence and protecting the integrity of United States currency; discussed Pardue’s criminal history at length; discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense; discussed its hope that Pardue would continue to transform into a “different person,” i.e., one who did not commit crimes; and considered the statements of Pardue, his counsel, and the prosecutor. This is sufficient to show that the district court properly weighed the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion by imposing a within-range sentence. See, e.g., Ward, 506 F.3d at 478 (the district court “carefully considered and prudently balanced the various factors in arriving at the sentence” where it reviewed many aspects of the PSR on the record, heard live testimony, allowed the entry of letters addressed to the court, and considered statements of the defendant, defendant’s counsel, and the prosecution).