Opinion ID: 44560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statement of Reasons for the Sentence

Text: McGowan contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) required the district court to state its specific reasons for imposition of a sentence outside the Guideline range, either during the sentencing hearing or in the written judgment, and that the court failed to comply with the statute. The Government contends that McGowan did not voice this objection in the district court, and therefore this issue was not preserved for review. Because we necessarily consider the court’s statement of reasons in our review of the sentence for reasonableness, however, we assume arguendo that this issue is preserved for our review. We find the district court’s statement of reasons sufficient. A court is not obligated to explicitly mention the § 3553(a) factors, but instead can meet this requirement through the totality of its actions. See United States v. Thomas, 446 3 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that the district court considered § 3553(a) factors where the parties’ arguments and the PSI’s calculations outlined them); See also United States v. Wivell, 893 F.2d 156, 158 (8th Cir. 1990) (record of entire sentencing hearing considered in evaluating district court’s reasons for imposing particular sentence; reviewing court will not rely exclusively upon court’s summary statement at closing of sentencing hearing). At the original sentencing hearing (which we consider in addressing this issue) the court listened to the arguments of counsel, imposed a sentence of 188 months, and said it would impose a sentence of 180 months if the Guidelines were not mandatory. The court said that it had arrived at the 180-month sentence “after considering the factors of the nature of the crime, the defendant’s criminal history, and the quantity of drugs involved.” (R.3-33 at 31.) At the resentencing hearing, the court listened to the arguments of counsel and, following the imposition of sentence, said “The sentence is 15 years, which the Court determines to be reasonable in light of the factors of 18 U.S.C., Section 3553.” (R.4-52 at 11.) These statements suffice. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2005). Nothing in the record supports McGowan’s suggestion that the district court ignored his arguments in imposing this sentence. 4