Opinion ID: 3019108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reasonableness of Henry’s Sentence

Text: Henry claims that the District Court failed to articulate fully its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. For example, Henry points out that the District Court failed to address 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), to wit, how a 188-month sentence would avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. Henry’s assertions are not borne out in the record. The sentencing transcripts reveal that the District Court articulated and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. For example, the District Court noted that: [Henry’s] history and his characteristics all fit within the comments in 18 United States Code, Section 3553, which the Court must consider in imposing the sentence. Certainly the violence would make him a danger to the public. The handgun, of course, would also constitute a threat to the public generally. And while much of his problem has been or problems have been traced to drug use, his conduct has been very dangerous and very destructive. So that we have here significant involvement with drugs. We have a combative attitude. We have possession of handguns and we have one who, when released on bond, in essence, became a fugitive. Moreover, the District Court does not have to mechanically recite every sentencing factor. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 329 (“Nor must a court discuss and make findings as to each of the § 3553(a) factors if the record makes clear the court took the factors into account in 5 sentencing.”). Consequently, the District Court’s failure to recite § 3553(a)(6) does not render the sentence unreasonable since the record shows that the § 3553 factors were taken into account. As such, Henry’s sentence is not unreasonable.