Opinion ID: 1444820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmless Error Analysis and Guideline Calculation

Text: The government urges us to hold that the erroneous application of the identity theft enhancement to the calculation of Hawes' Guidelines Range was harmless. Our recent decision in United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir.2008), controls our analysis of this issue. [6] For us to uphold Hawes' sentence, it must be clear that the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed. Id. at 215. As the party defending the sentence imposed, the government bears the burden of persuad[ing] the court of appeals that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor. Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). In the present case, based on the identity theft enhancement, the District Court calculated the total offense level to be 27, instead of 25, which resulted in a Guideline Range of 70 to 87 months' imprisonment, rather than 57 to 71 months. The Court acknowledged that the advisory Guideline range of 70 to 87 months was the starting point for any sentence she would impose. The judge indicated her belief that a sentence within the advisory guideline range does appropriately concern and address all of the concerns of sentencing and stated her intention to sentence within that range. App. 411. On the basis of its evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors, the Court then imposed a sentence of 76 months in the middle to low end of the advisory Guidelines range it had calculated. [7] The government has not met its burden of showing that the error was harmless. It is by no means unambiguous that Hawes' sentence would be the same regardless of whether the identity theft enhancement applied. See Langford, 516 F.3d at 217. It is clear from the record that the sentencing court intended to and did in fact select Hawes' sentence from the calculated range. Hawes' sentence was in the mid- to low-point of the calculated range. Because the enhancement was erroneously applied, the Court imposed a sentence outside the proper Guideline range of 57 to 71 months. In order to impose a 76-month sentence, the Court would have had to depart upward from the Guidelines, reasoning through the § 3553(a) factors and explaining why the defendant merited a greater term of imprisonment than that contemplated by the Guidelines. Here, by contrast, the Court made clear that a within-Guidelines range was appropriate for Hawes based on its § 3553(a) analysis. The miscalculation of the Guideline range by the District Court also affected the arguments that the parties made at sentencing. After the Court decided that the enhancement would apply and the range would be 70 to 87 months, defense counsel argued for a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines, that is, a 70-month sentence. Under the correct range, counsel would have urged the Court to impose a 57-month sentence instead. Because the error was not harmless, we will remand to the District Court for resentencing in light of the foregoing.