Opinion ID: 2975557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sutherlin’s Sentence

Text: 1. The District Court’s Consideration of Sutherlin’s Post-Sentencing Conduct After the district court sentenced Sutherlin for the second time, we decided United States v. Worley, 453 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 450 (2006). There, the defendant appealed his sentence following a Booker remand. He argued that the district court erred in failing to take into account his efforts to rehabilitate himself since his original sentencing. We held that the scope of a Booker remand does “not require or permit consideration of factors postdating the original sentencing.” Id. at 707. We agreed with the district court that because the purpose of a Booker remand is to ensure that the defendant’s sentence is consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the district court may consider only those facts that existed at the time the defendant was first sentenced. Nos. 05-6562/6725 United States v. Keller, et al. Page 7 Id. at 708. In support of our holding, we cited approvingly from the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Re, 419 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1054 (2006), in which that court explained: “The goal of the [Booker] remand is to determine if, at the time of sentencing, the district judge would have imposed a different sentence in the absence of mandatory guidelines. Post-sentencing events or conduct simply are not relevant to that inquiry.” Sutherlin argues that Worley’s statement that district courts are not “permit[ted]” to consider post-sentencing factors is dicta because Worley dealt with the question of whether district courts are required to consider such factors, not whether, even if not required, they may nonetheless do so. In other words, Sutherlin claims that even after Worley, district courts disposing of Booker remands retain discretion to reduce a defendant’s sentence on the basis of factors that did not exist as of the time of the original sentencing. We disagree. There is no basis for concluding that Worley allows district courts to take stock of post-sentencing developments but does not compel them to do so. Worley expressly rejected any such distinction, stating that “the order of remand did not require or permit consideration of factors postdating the original sentencing hearing.” Id. at 707. More importantly, Worley is predicated not on any notions of what is or is not compulsory or permissive for district courts but on the conclusion that consideration of post-sentencing factors is incompatible with the limited scope of a Booker remand, that is, reviewing whether the defendant would have received the same sentence had the Guidelines been advisory, rather than mandatory, at the time of the original sentencing. See United States v. Smith, 208 F. App’x 425, 427 (6th Cir. 2006) (vacating sentence where the district court granted a 68-month downward variance on the basis of post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts because “the goal of the Booker remand . . . is to determine whether, at the time of the original sentencing, the district judge would have imposed a different sentence in the absence of mandatory guidelines”). Finally, even if there are cases in which consideration of post-sentencing factors is justified, this is not one of them. United States v. Lloyd, 469 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that the Third Circuit “essentially agree[s]” with the holding in Worley but that in “unusual” circumstances, a district court could properly take into account post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2444 (2007). Sutherlin’s clean post-conviction record, including his good behavior while incarcerated, and his stewardship of a family business are all commendable and have no doubt helped to right Sutherlin’s course. But they are not the kind of unusual circumstances that are deserving of consideration on a Booker remand. There is no dispute that the district court here varied below the Guidelines minimum in imposing sentence on Sutherlin in part on the basis of Sutherlin’s post-sentencing conduct. Sutherlin nonetheless contends that we need not remand the case for re-sentencing because even absent consideration of his favorable conduct since his original sentencing, the district court had ample other evidence before it from which to conclude that a 36-month sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to effectuate the goals of § 3553(a)(2). Sutherlin points to the letters from his family and friends attesting to his good character, the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, the evidence from trial about his youth and impressionability, and his expressions of contrition at the sentencing hearing. We have no trouble concluding that the district court reasonably could have varied below the Guidelines minimum here, and we have upheld several post-Booker sentences in which district courts have done just that. See e.g., United States v. Cherry, 487 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming as substantively reasonable a sentence of 120 months where the Guidelines specified a sentencing range of 210 to 262 months of imprisonment); United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming a downward departure resulting in a sentence of three years’ supervised release where the Guidelines called for 24 to 30 months of imprisonment); United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2006) (affirming sentence of 120 months as substantively reasonable where the Nos. 05-6562/6725 United States v. Keller, et al. Page 8 Guidelines yielded a range of 188 to 235 months). However, contrary to Sutherlin’s argument, we cannot conclude on the record before us that the district court would have imposed the same 36month sentence even had it not considered Sutherlin’s post-sentencing conduct. The district court’s statements at Sutherlin’s sentencing show that it regarded Sutherlin’s post-sentencing conduct as a more-than-de-minimis consideration. According to the court: Since [Sutherlin’s] conviction he has continued to be a productive and a hard working citizen working to resurrect his father’s aviation sales business prior to reporting to prison. He has not had any additional trouble with the law while on release and since incarceration he has had no disciplinary problems. He has also organized a Bible study group and has worked hard to keep regular contact with his wife and daughter. (JA 1314-15.) Because the record does not disclose the precise extent to which the district court relied on its positive assessment of Sutherlin’s post-sentencing conduct, we remand the case for re-sentencing in light of Worley. 2. Other Factors Underlying the District Court’s Sentencing Decision We also briefly address the Government’s arguments that the district court improperly considered Sutherlin’s youth in imposing sentence and that the district court failed to ensure that Sutherlin’s sentence was not disparately lenient compared to Keller’s. First, we decline to hold that the district court erred in basing its sentencing decision in part on Sutherlin’s youth and his susceptibility to Keller’s influence. Given the facts of this case, these do not strike us as irrelevant sentencing considerations. Davis, 458 F.3d at 498 (stating that “age . . . may indeed be a legitimate basis for a variance”). As the district court explained, Sutherlin was only 17 when he began working for Kelco and 21 when most of the fraudulent activity occurred; Sutherlin was persuaded to drop out of college by Keller, who trained him in every aspect of his job; Keller reinforced whatever verbal suasion he employed by providing Sutherlin with an important title (Vice President of Kelco) and an annual six-figure salary; and Sutherlin’s limited working life had been spent entirely at Kelco, thereby possibly depriving him of additional experiences that might have averted his fraudulent conduct. As to the issue of sentencing disparity, any reduction the district court may see fit to grant Sutherlin need not precisely mirror that granted to Keller. Although their criminal conduct was similar, the record shows that there are good reasons why the district court may regard Keller as less deserving of lenience than Sutherlin—Keller was the mastermind and ultimate decisionmaker behind the fraud, he has never expressed remorse or taken responsibility for his actions, he apparently fled the country in the wake of his conviction and original sentence, and he has only involuntarily paid restitution from funds seized by the Government. Our decision today expresses no views about the reasonableness of a 36-month sentence for Sutherlin’s criminal conduct, nor does it prevent the district court from varying below the Guidelines if, after applying all the § 3553(a) factors and excluding consideration of Sutherlin’s conduct since his original sentencing, the court deems such a below-Guidelines penalty “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to effectuate the goals of sentencing. See United States v. Borho, 485 F.3d 904, 912 (6th Cir. 2007) (“A dramatic downward variance . . . is not per se or even presumptively unreasonable.”); Davis, 458 F.3d at 500 (stating that, on remand, the district court “retains ample discretion to grant [the defendant] a variance”). On remand, should the district court again sentence Sutherlin below the Guidelines minimum, its task is to explain why that variance is appropriate Nos. 05-6562/6725 United States v. Keller, et al. Page 9 given the § 3553(a) factors and the defendant’s individual characteristics. Of course, “the farther the judge’s sentence departs from the guidelines sentence[,] the more compelling the justification based on factors in [§] 3553(a) must be.” Davis, 458 F.3d at 496 (internal ellipses and quotation marks omitted).