Opinion ID: 3002812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post‐offense conduct

Text: Arnaout next argues that the district court erred in refusing to consider post‐offense good conduct when it determined his sentence. On remand, Arnaout asserted that while in prison, he received twenty credits of adult college‐level education with a grade point average of 3.60, taught Arabic to other prisoners, and received certificates of completion for additional classes he took in prison. He contends that his post‐offense conduct warranted a lower sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). At the hearing on remand, the government maintained that Arnaout’s post‐offense record was at least mixed. It told the district court that it had information from the federal correctional system that Arnaout had been adjudicated guilty of five disciplinary fractions while in prison over the preceding two years. In light of this additional conduct, the government argued that the district court should not lower Arnaout’s sentence on the basis of his conduct after the offense. No. 06-2285 Page 7 After hearing both sides’ arguments, the district court declined to reduce Arnaout’s sentence on the basis of any post‐offense rehabilitation and said it did not see a basis for a downward departure. It also made clear that it was not making a finding that Arnaout had engaged in bad conduct, saying there were a number of reasons behind interactions between inmates and prison authorities. We agree with the government that when read in context, the district court’s ruling did not evince a belief that it could not vary from the advisory guidelines based on a defendant’s good conduct after conviction, but rather that the district court concluded no such deviation was warranted in this particular case in light of the circumstances.