Opinion ID: 178904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Holcomb's sentence is substantively reasonable

Text: Finally, we turn to the substantive reasonableness of Holcomb's sentence. A properly calculated advisory guidelines range represents a starting point for substantive-reasonableness review because it is one of the § 3553(a) factors and because the guidelines purport to take into consideration most, if not all, of the other § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir.2008). A sentence will be found substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor. United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range and discussed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, giving each appropriate weight. The court evaluated the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need for the sentence imposed, determining that a below-Guidelines sentence would best differentiate between this case and other more serious escapes. It also considered the deterrent effects of the sentence, concluding that a consecutive sentence would best deter future escapes. In addition, three of the four defendants (those with similar criminal histories) were given the same below-Guidelines sentence to avoid any unwarranted sentencing disparities. Holcomb's sentence is therefore substantively reasonable.