Opinion ID: 1238695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bridges's Sentence

Text: Bridges contends the district court gave improper weight to one of the relevant [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors, not enough weight to another factor, and made a clear error in sentencing. Bridges protests the district court did not give a sufficient downward variance based on Bridges's multiple health issues. Bridges also complains the district court gave too much weight to Larry Jr.'s testimony regarding Bridges exhibiting a gun to Baker during the incident at the gas station, and improperly determined the nature and circumstances of the offense presented a strong potential for violence. These arguments are without merit. In reviewing a sentence, this court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,. . . failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. Because [t]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to make factual findings and credibility determinations, [t]he fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id. Gall sets forth the procedure the district court should follow when sentencing a criminal defendant. After correctly calculating the Guidelines range and giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party. Id. at 596. The district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,. . . [and] must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review. Id. at 597. In explaining the chosen sentence and analyzing the relevant § 3553(a) factors, `a district court is not required to provide a full opinion in every case, but must set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.' United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686, 691 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir.2008) (in turn quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007))). The district court correctly calculated Bridges's Guidelines range and did not base the sentencing decision on clearly erroneous facts. At sentencing, the district court expressly considered each of the relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained how each factor weighed in favor of or against Bridges. Addressing Bridges's history and characteristics, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the district court specifically mentioned Bridges's additional physical problems, and substance abuse problems. The fact the district court did not give this factor as much weight as Bridges would have preferred does not justify reversal; nor does the district court's allegedly giving too much weight to Bridges exhibiting a gun to Baker at the gas station, with that incident's potential for violence, justify reversal. The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. The district court's Guidelines calculation, ample explanation for the sentence imposed, and express consideration of the § 3553(a) factors in no way constitutes significant procedural error. Further, giv[ing] due deference to the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justify Bridges's sentence, Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597, our review of Bridges's sentence reveals no abuse of the district court's considerable discretion and no basis for concluding Bridges's below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable.