Opinion ID: 202124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Potential Issues

Text: Post-Booker, this court reviews sentences for reasonableness. Under the post-Booker approach, 'district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing,' subject to review by the courts of appeals for 'unreasonableness.' Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 76 (quoting Booker, supra). Our recent -7- decision, Jimenez-Beltre, supra, provides guidance for the determination and review of post-Booker sentences. Id. at  1. A review of the record in this case, and particularly the sentencing transcript, reveals that the district court's sentencing of the appellant was consistent with the approach we approved in JimenezBeltre. The court first calculated the applicable guidelines range. In doing so, the court stated several times that its reference to the Guidelines is on a purely advisory basis. In addition to consulting the guidelines on an advisory basis, the sentencing court also took into account the reasons cited by defendant for imposing a sentence below the guidelines range, and all those factors that are found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court gave a reasoned explanation why the factors cited by defendant did not warrant a sentence below the guidelines range. Id. at  3. Specifically, the court relied upon defendant's record of prior convictions and his repeated illegal re-entries into the country, and the need to promote respect for the law and to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. On this record, an argument that the district court acted unreasonably in declining to impose a sentence below the guidelines range would be without merit. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). -8-