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

Heading: The error is clear or obvious

Text: Second, we conclude that the error was clear or obvious. This Court has repeatedly held that a district court must offer at least some minimal incourt explanation of its sentence. Of course, “[t]he line between appropriately succinct and inadequately silent may be difficult to draw in particular cases.” 23 In close cases, to determine whether the inadequacy of a district court’s explanation reflects a clear or obvious error, we have focused on the “level of detail” in the district court’s statements at sentencing. 24 Here, where the district court provided no detail at all as to its 23 Genao, 869 F.3d at 142. 24Villafuerte, 502 F.3d at 212; see id. (any error regarding adequacy of explanation was not obvious as district court “was not mute at sentencing,” “found that the bottom of the Guidelines range was ‘a fair sentence’ given [the defendant’s] conduct,” and “offered reasons for rejecting [the defendant’s] arguments for a non-Guidelines sentence” (citation omitted)). 16 reasoning process and was silent on the subject of how it arrived at the sentence imposed, the lack of compliance with § 3553(c) is clear.