Opinion ID: 1194668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Gall Reasonableness Review

Text: Post- Booker, we review a district court's sentencing determination, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, for reasonableness, Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116 at ; see also Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2459, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-61, 125 S.Ct. 738, which, as the Supreme Court has recently confirmed, has two components: procedural and substantive. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . Our review of sentences for reasonableness is not to be confused with the district court's task to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Reasonableness is the standard appellate courts use to evaluate the district court's accomplishment of its sentencing task. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at ; Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465. In imposing a sentence, neither the district court nor the parties are to focus on the reasonableness of the sentence, but rather on the sentence's ability to accomplish the sentencing purposes in § 3553(a). See United States v. Clark, 469 F.3d 568, 571 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Foreman, 436 F.3d 638, 644 n. 1 (6th Cir.2006)); accord United States v. Davis, 458 F.3d 505, 509-10 (6th Cir.2006).
Our reasonableness analysis begins with a robust review of the factors evaluated and the procedures employed by the district court in reaching its sentencing determination. [4] 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. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . Accordingly, our procedural reasonableness review consists of three steps. First, we must ensure that the district court correctly calculat[ed] the applicable Guidelines range which are the starting point and initial benchmark of its sentencing analysis. [5] Id. In reviewing the district court's calculation of the Guidelines, we still review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750, 2007 WL 4321998, at . However, the advisory Guidelines range is only one of several factors that the district court must consider at sentencing. [6] See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, our second task is to ensure that the district judge gave both parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate and then considered all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by [each] party. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . In evaluating the parties' arguments, the sentencing judge may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. Id.; accord Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465. Rather, the district judge must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and upon a thorough consideration of all of the § 3553(a) factors. [7] Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . After the district court's evaluation of the parties' arguments in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district judge will impose a sentence and must explain his reasons for selecting the sentence imposed. Accordingly, our final task is to ensure that the district court has adequately explain[ed] the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing. Id. Reversible procedural error occurs if the sentencing judge fails to set forth enough [of a statement of reasons] to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision making authority. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. [W]hen `a defendant raises a particular argument in seeking a lower sentence, the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendant's argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it.' United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 243, 251 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir.2006)). Likewise, the record must contain the district court's rationale for concluding that the sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While there is no requirement . . . that the district court engage in a `ritualistic incantation to establish consideration of a legal issue' or that the court make specific findings related to each of the factors considered, McClellan, 164 F.3d at 310, the district court must nonetheless provide an articulation of the reasons the district court reached the sentenced imposed. United States v. Jackson, 408 F.3d 301, 305 (6th Cir.2005). Simply list[ing] the § 3553(a) factors and various characteristics of the defendant without refer[ing] to the applicable Guidelines range or explaining [the] decision to [stay within or] deviate from that range is insufficient. United States v. Cousins, 469 F.3d 572, 577 (6th Cir.2006). The district court must provide a clear explanation of why it has either accepted or rejected the parties' arguments and thereby chosen the particular sentence imposed, regardless of whether it is within or outside of the Guidelines. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . If the district judge decides to depart from the advisory Guidelines range, he must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. Gall, 2007 WL 4292116, at . In general, a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. Id. However, we do not, and indeed after Gall cannot, require `extraordinary' circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. Id. at . Likewise, we no longer apply a form of proportionality review to outside-Guidelines sentences, which would require the strength of the justification for a departure to vary in proportion to the amount of deviation from the Guidelines, and find our prior cases applying this rule, see, e.g., United States v. Davis, 458 F.3d 491, 496 (6th Cir.2006), to have been effectively overturned by Gall. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . To summarize, in reviewing sentences for procedural reasonableness we must ensure that the district court: (1) properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range; (2) considered the other § 3553(a) factors as well as the parties' arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately articulated its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen, including any rejection of the parties' arguments for an outside-Guidelines sentence and any decision to deviate from the advisory Guidelines range.
After we have found the district court's sentencing decision to be procedurally sound, we must then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . In reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we must take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Id. For sentences within the Guidelines, we may apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at ; Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2456; United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir.2006). We may not, however, apply a presumption of unreasonableness to outside-Guidelines sentences. Gall, 128 S.Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at . In general, we must give due deference to the district court's conclusion that the sentence imposed is warranted by the § 3553(a) factors. Id. The fact that [we] might have reasonably concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id.