Opinion ID: 203367
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sentencing Errors.(A) Ofray

Text: At Ofray's sentencing hearing on February 25, 2005, the district court, after calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines range as 188 to 235 months, imposed a middle-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 200 months. Ofray in essence asserts a two-part, procedural challenge to his sentence. First, he claims that the district court erroneously treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory, rather than advisory. Second, Ofray maintains that the court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Where, as here, an appellant challenges the procedural aspects of his sentencing, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We determine whether the court made errors such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence  including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69, 72 (1st Cir.2008) (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ofray's claim that the district court erroneously treated the guidelines as mandatory, rather than advisory, can be disposed of quickly. Here, it is evident from the sentencing transcript that the district court, and all parties, were well aware that the sentencing guidelines were only advisory. As the Government points out, Ofray's own counsel stated on the record at the sentencing hearing that the guidelines are only advisory for this court. The district court also stated as follows: The court is using the guidelines as advisory. . . . There is no doubt, therefore, that the district court imposed the sentence under the correct understanding that the sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. Similarly, it is evident that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the relevant sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). While the court did not expressly refer to the statute or recite the factors, it provided a reasoned and adequate explanation for the sentence that was imposed. See United States v. Garcia-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir.2007) (An important prerequisite to our reasonableness analysis is the district court's reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. . . .). We allow a good deal of leeway in reviewing the adequacy of a district court's explanation. United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440, 446 (1st Cir.2007). Ultimately, we defer to the district court's sentence as long as the court has provided a plausible explanation, and the overall result is defensible. United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 204 (1st Cir.2006). Here, the district court properly began the sentencing procedure by determining Ofray's adjusted offense level. The court then stated that, although it was aware of the advisory nature of the guidelines, nevertheless I believe that the guidelines do provide the factors which the court should consider in this sentence, in which [sic] also provides a reasonable sentence in view of the evidence in this case. The court then found that the applicable sentencing guidelines range for Ofray, which is uncontested on this appeal, was a term of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months and a range for a monetary fine of $20,000 to $4 million. Before imposing the 200-month prison term and the below-guidelines fine of $10,000, the district court gave the following explanation for the sentence: The court notes that the defendant[']s substantial participation in furtherance of an extensive and violent drug trafficking enterprise and its detrimental consequences to society, which [sic] warrants a sentence at the middle of the guideline range. There is no indication that the district court failed to consider, or accord sufficient weight, to the relevant sentencing factors. The court emphasized the scope and violent nature of the conspiracy, Ofray's extensive role within it, and the detrimental consequences to society. The court also stated that the reasonableness of a sentence at the middle of the guidelines range was justified by the evidence presented at trial. The reasonableness of the within-guidelines sentence is strongly supported by our review of the overall record. As discussed above, the evidence clearly established that Ofray sold large quantities of narcotics from various drug points that he owned and operated over the course of many years, and that he regularly carried weapons in connection with his narcotics activity. While the district court's explanation for a middle of the guideline range sentence could have been more comprehensive, the court's sentence was supported by a plausible explanation and constituted an overall defensible result. Accordingly, we find that Ofray has not carried the heavy burden of proving that his within-the-range sentence was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286, 292 (1st Cir.2008).