Opinion ID: 148538
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Articulation of Reasons for the Variance

Text: Hall’s conclusory assertion that the district court provided no clearly articulated reason for its sentencing variance lacks merit. Although the PSR opined that the district court may wish to consider a Guidelines-based upward 6 Case: 09-30240 Document: 00511140316 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/14/2010 No. 09-30240 departure pursuant to USSG §4A1.3,5 the district court chose instead to issue a non-Guideline sentence based on § 3553(a). USSG §4A1.3, therefore, has no bearing on this case. Additionally, the record belies Hall’s contention that the district court failed to articulate reasons under § 3553(a). When a district court “elects to give a non-Guideline sentence, [i]t should carefully articulate the reasons [it] concludes that the sentence [it] has selected is appropriate for that defendant” in order to “to permit [us] to review the sentence for reasonableness as directed by Booker.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, the district court provided extensive reasons for a non-Guideline sentence during Hall’s sentencing hearing as well as in its written statement of reasons, such as his possession of knives, the brutal nature in which he killed his ex-wife, his disrespect for the law, the way in which he disrupted his trial, and his threat to kill his attorney. We thus find that the district court sufficiently articulated the reasons for Hall’s non-Guideline sentence.