Opinion ID: 1264038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rita error

Text: Jones alleges the district court committed Rita error by failing to sufficiently explain its findings of fact with respect to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and demonstrate that it had considered the parties' arguments and had a reasonable basis for exercising its decision-making authority. Jones did not object to this purported failure, thus we review for plain error. When analyzing the § 3553 factors a district court is not required to provide a full opinion in every case. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir.2008); United States v. Sigala, 521 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Mosqueda-Estevez, 485 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir.2007) (noting, in a pre- Rita decision, that defendants do not have a right to have their sentences handed down according to any particular script). The sentencing judge need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasonable basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. The appropriate length of the statement will vary by case and may be relatively brief if the district court rests its decision on the Sentencing Commission's reasoning and `decides to apply the Guidelines to a particular case.' United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 994 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). In determining whether the district court adequately considered the § 3553 factors we review the entire sentencing record, not just the judge's statements at the hearing. Phelps, 536 F.3d at 866. In Sigala we held the district court's statement was brief but legally sufficient because the record showed that the court listened to defendant's arguments and found the circumstances of his particular case to be insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the advisory sentence. 521 F.3d at 851. The present case is analogous to Sigala. While the district court could have said more, it is clear from the record that the court considered Jones' arguments and found from the facts of his case that he deserved a sentence on the low end of the advisory guidelines. Although the court did not discuss all the evidence in the record, clearly the court understood it. The court read defendant's sentencing memorandum, which contained a detailed discussion of the applicable § 3553 factors, and stated it would consider all the § 3553 factors. The court also listened to Jones' evidence, watched his PowerPoint presentation, and observed that defense counsel had done a lot of work on the case. At the conclusion of the hearing the court stated, I've taken all of these [§ 3553] factors into consideration and I do not believe that individually any two of them or group of them warrant a departure below the guidelines. Far from ignoring Jones' arguments, the court found them persuasive enough to impose a sentence equal to the minimum suggested by the guidelines. Rita instructs the district court to discuss the § 3553(a) factors in more depth where  as here  the defendant presents nonfrivolous reasons for a different sentence or a downward variance. 127 S.Ct. at 2468. We find the district court's explanation was sufficient and there is no Rita error.