Opinion ID: 1422861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of review for sentencing determinations

Text: A district court's sentencing determination is reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness, which has both a procedural and a substantive component. Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 592, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court committed no procedural error. Id. at 597; United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir.2005). A district court necessarily abuses its sentencing discretion if it commit[s][a] significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. If the district court's sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we must then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard[,] ... tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Id. For sentences within the Guidelines range, we may apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. Id.; Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir.2006). We may not, however, apply a presumption of unreasonableness to sentences outside of the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. If the sentence departs from the Guidelines, we must give due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify the variance. Id. The fact that [this court] might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id.