Opinion ID: 4526485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: There is an error.

Text: First, we find error. At Rosa’s sentencing hearing, the district court failed to provide any explanation of the sentence imposed. Notably, it did not adopt the PSR in open court, which this Court has held can satisfy § 3553(c)’s requirement of an in-court explanation. 7 The district court stated only that it reached its decision “[a]fter hearing arguments by the counsel and reading the submissions and 3553(a) factors.” 8 Such a bare statement, with nothing more, is insufficient to comply with § 3553(c). 9 In arguing that the district court satisfied § 3553(c), the Government points to precedent involving the separate procedural error of failing to 7 Molina, 356 F.3d at 277. 8 App’x at 38. 9See United States v. Genao, 869 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 2017) (no adequate explanation where “the sentencing court explained only that it had ‘taken into consideration the factors of 3553(a), oral argument and the submissions, and . . . believe[d that] the sentence . . . [wa]s sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the aims of the statute,’” and failed to offer any explanation for applying a contested 16-level enhancement (alterations in original)); United States v. Zackson, 6 F.3d 911, 923 (2d Cir. 1993) (no adequate explanation where sentencing court stated only “I have considered everything”). 9 consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government is correct that this Court presumes that the sentencing judge has considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors and arguments unless the record suggests otherwise. 10 That presumption certainly applies here, and is supplemented by the court’s explicit statement that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. However, the fact that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and arguments does not satisfy the separate obligation under § 3553(c) to explain in open court how its consideration led to the sentence imposed. To be sure, some of the same concerns animate our precedent on both § 3553(a) and § 3553(c). In both contexts, we have consistently refrained from requiring the district court to explicitly address specific sentencing considerations. We have also never required a district court to explain in open court why any particular unselected sentence would be inappropriate 10See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 29 (2d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). 10 (either because it is greater than necessary or because it is not sufficient to satisfy the goals of sentencing); we do not oblige district courts to expressly compare various numbers. Under § 3553(c), we simply expect the court to identify the consideration or considerations driving the selection of the sentence that was actually imposed. A district court’s explanation for why it chose a particular sentence itself constitutes an explanation for why it believed a higher or lower sentence would not have been “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a). There is no mechanical test for compliance with § 3553(c). The adequacy of an explanation is highly case specific, as “the length and level of detail required varies depending upon the circumstances.” 11 This Court has therefore refused to “encroach upon the province of district courts by dictating a precise mode or manner in which they must explain the 11 Villafuerte, 502 F.3d at 210. 11 sentences they impose.” 12 We have declined to “insist that the district court address every argument the defendant has made or discuss every § 3553(a) factor individually”; “prescribe any formulation a sentencing judge will be obliged to follow in order to demonstrate discharge of the duty to consider the Guidelines”; or otherwise require “robotic incantations by district judges.” 13 This Court recognizes that “[s]entencing is a responsibility heavy enough without our adding formulaic or ritualized burdens.” 14 Indeed, the “statement” requirement of § 3553(c) sets a low threshold. As the Supreme Court has explained: “The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances.” 15 Where, as here, “a judge decides simply to apply the 12United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 2007), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2020). 13Villafuerte, 502 F.3d at 210 (punctuation, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted); see United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Section 3553(c) requires no specific formulas or incantations . . . .”). 14 United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 193 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). 15 Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. 12 Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” 16 “Circumstances may well make clear that the judge rests his decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence . . . in the typical case, and that the judge has found that the case before him is typical.” 17 Moreover, as this Court has recognized, “a brief statement of reasons will generally suffice where the parties have addressed only straightforward, conceptually simple arguments to the sentencing judge.” 18 The “context and the record” may render a district court’s explanation adequate even where “the judge might have said more.” 19 16 Id. Id. at 357; see id. at 345, 358 (explanation adequate where sentencing judge stated that a 17 Guidelines sentence was appropriate as “the public needs to be protected”). 18 Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193 (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 Rita, 551 U.S. at 359. 13 Nonetheless, “[s]tating no reasons at all plainly falls short of the requirement to state reasons that is set forth in § 3553(c), no matter what the required level of specificity may be.” 20 Recently, this Court reaffirmed that principle in United States v. Pugh, where the district court failed to explain a sentence that involved consecutive statutory maximum terms on two counts. 21 This Court recognized that the absence of any explanation obscured the district court’s decision-making process, including but not limited to the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent terms. We do not read Pugh to deviate from longstanding precedent of this Court holding that a district court need not use any particular set of words to satisfy § 3553(c) or expressly address any particular sentencing 20 United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 United States v. Pugh, 945 F.3d 9, 16, 27 (2d Cir. 2019). 14 consideration. 22 Pugh simply applies the settled principle that a district court must provide some oral account of its reasoning that would permit an understanding of how the district court weighed the relevant considerations and selected the sentence imposed. Although the requisite detail will differ by case, and may often be stated with concision, the utter absence of explanation will never suffice. In the case before us, the district court understandably might not have felt a need to explain its sentence in light of Rosa’s sheer number of fraudulent schemes, particularly after just having heard from numerous victims in open court. We do not question that the need for deterrence is high in this case, and that such a need likely seemed obvious to the district court. However, the fact that we can readily discern from the record any number of good reasons for the sentence imposed does not eliminate the 22See Genao, 869 F.3d at 142 (“There is no requirement that a judge imposing a sentence provide lengthy or elaborate explanations of the often multiple aggravating and mitigating factors about the offense and the offender, or the precise weight assigned by the court to the various, sometimes competing policy considerations relevant to sentencing.”). 15 district court’s independent obligation to explain its reasoning in open court. Given this unusually spare sentencing transcript, we are constrained to find that § 3553(c) was not satisfied here.