Opinion ID: 222147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identifying Procedural Challenges

Text: With this framework in mind, we turn to what Ms. Lente argues are procedural errors: (1) increasing her sentence based on features of SR 47; (2) increasing her sentence because the offense was unusually reckless, and failing to address circumstances of the accident that mitigated the level of her recklessness; (3) increasing the sentence because three people died; (4) failing to address the impact of Ms. Lente's disadvantaged background on her criminal history and failing to explain how her history bore the weight of the variance; (5) failing to address the disparity between the court's sentence and those of similar offenses and offenders; (6) failing to explain the court's rejection of uncontradicted evidence of Ms. Lente's positive potential for rehabilitation. Although Ms. Lente characterizes all of these issues as affecting the procedural reasonableness of her sentence, some of them are actually substantive reasonableness challenges. Our preliminary task is to identify the procedural challenges. (1) Ms. Lente argues that the district court violated her procedural due process rights by basing its sentence on irrelevant facts and unproven assumptions that on the night and place of the accident, the road was busy and [she] knew it was, and by not allowing her to challenge meaningfully the bases for the court's assumptions. Aplt. Br. at 23. This is a proper procedural argument because it challenges the district court's method of fact-finding on a fact that it used to increase her sentence. (2) Ms. Lente argues that the court erred by (a) increasing her sentence based on her extraordinary recklessness due to her high BAC of .21 and her driving without a license and (b) failing to address her argument that the circumstances leading to the accident mitigated against a finding of extraordinary recklessness. The second part is a proper procedural challenge to the court's failure to adequately explain her sentence by not addressing her material, non-frivolous argument. See United States v. Pinson, 542 F.3d 822, 833-834 (10th Cir.2008). The first part of her argument, however, challenges the substantive reasonableness of her sentence. Although she argues it is procedural error to rely on an irrelevant factor, her BAC and lack of a driver's license are not irrelevant factors and concern the circumstances of her offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Her true objection is to the weight that the court placed on these factors to support its extraordinary recklessness determination. A challenge to the sufficiency of the justifications for the sentence is a substantive reasonableness challenge. See Wittig, 528 F.3d at 1284-85. (3) Ms. Lente argues that the district court erred in increasing her sentence because three people died. She contends it was procedural error for the court to give inadequate explanation of its policy disagreement with the Guidelines. Although the absence of explanation could constitute procedural error, see, e.g., United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203, 217-219 (3d Cir.2010), the court did give a procedurally adequate explanation for why it disagreed with the Guidelines. Ms. Lente's true complaint is with the substance of that explanation, i.e., whether the district court presented a persuasive reason for disagreeing with the Guidelines. This challenge speaks to substantive reasonableness. (4) Ms. Lente argues that the district court failed to address the impact of her disadvantaged background on her criminal history. But she admits that the district court summarized Dr. Rapoport's testimony about her upbringing, and that the court concluded her abusive background did not support mitigating her sentence. See Aplt. Br. at 35 (citing R. Vol. 1 at 434-35; id. at 440 n. 5). The court's statement that the testimony of Dr. Rapoport. . . did not give me any reason to mitigate [Ms. Lente's] sentence, R. Vol. 1 at 440 n. 5, indicates no procedural shortcoming. Ms. Lente's true challenge appears to be to the district court's balancing of her background characteristics and her criminal history and the weight the court gave to those factors. This is a substantive, not procedural, challenge. See, e.g., Pinson, 542 F.3d at 835-36 ([T]he weight the district court places on certain factors is reviewed for substantive unreasonableness.). (5) Ms. Lente asserts that the district court failed to address her § 3553(a)(6) argument about the disparity between her sentence and those of similar offenses and offenders. This is a proper procedural challenge that we will address at some length below. (6) Ms. Lente argues that the district court failed to explain its rejection of uncontradicted evidence of her potential for rehabilitation, citing to testimony from Dr. Rapoport that, in his opinion, her depression could be successfully treated through medication. The court gave somewhat inconsistent statements about Dr. Rapoport's testimony. Compare R. Vol. 1 at 440 n. 5 (acknowledging Dr. Rapoport's opinion that Ms. Lente could be treated successfully and stating that the court had no reason to doubt Dr. Rapoport's assessment) with id. (stating that the court had no credible evidence suggesting that Lente is particularly amenable to treatment). But the court adequately explained that Dr. Rapoport's assessment that Ms. Lente's depression (and, accordingly, her alcoholism) could be treated successfully did not lessen[] [her] culpability for her crimes nor does it detract from the horrific nature of her crimes. Id. And the district court acted consistently with Dr. Rapoport's assessment by recommending Ms. Lente for mental health treatment. See id. ([G]iven Dr. Rapoport's assessment, I have recommended to the Bureau of Prisons that [Ms.] Lente undergo mental health treatment while she serves her sentence.). There is no procedural issue here. Rather, Ms. Lente's true complaint is that the district court should have given more weight to her amenability to treatment when considering § 3553(a)(2). See Aplt. Br. at 39. But that argument speaks to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence, not to procedural error.