Court Opinion

ID: 9559285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:41.258471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:32.081455
License: Public Domain

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that defendant Barbara Wallace’s conviction must be affirmed. I also concur in the determination that because defendant did not properly preserve her objection in the district court, her present claim that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable is subject to review only for plain error. I concur in the majority’s formulation of the four-part standard that governs our plain error analysis. Yet, despite the majority’s considerable efforts, I remain unpersuaded that the sentencing court’s procedural error, in failing to adequately explain its sentencing decision, either affected defendant’s substantial rights or affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Hence, although I am not unsympathetic with Wallace’s request for leniency, it is evident that she has not carried her burden of meeting the third and fourth prerequisites to relief for plain error. I respectfully dissent, therefore, from the decision vacating the sentence and remanding for re-sentencing.
Defendant Wallace expressly recognized at sentencing that the district court had correctly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range to be 78 to 97 months. In allocution, both Wallace and her attor*809ney asked the court to have “mercy,” citing such considerations as: her lack of a prior criminal record; her steady employment history as a “serving person” (nurse’s assistant at a VA medical center in California); her single motherhood of two small children; and her relatively insignificant role in the drug trafficking offense (in comparison to her more culpable boyfriend, Damien White-Baber, who received a sentence of only 36 months). Wallace did not ask for a downward departure of any type and did not expressly request or propose a downward variance from the Guidelines range. Neither she nor her attorney suggested a specific prison term that would be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes [of sentencing].” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Their unspecific request for mercy could reasonably be construed as seeking either a downward variance or simply a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range, the latter of which Wallace received.
For the government, the Assistant U.S. Attorney responded by emphasizing Wallace’s persistent refusal to acknowledge her culpability and accept responsibility for her wrongdoing. The AUSA also noted additional evidence indicating that Wallace’s involvement in the drug trafficking scheme was not as limited as the conduct for which she was convicted. The AUSA identified three obvious reasons why co-defendant White-Baber’s sentence was more lenient despite his greater culpability: (1) White-Baber pled guilty and received credit for acceptance of responsibility; (2) Wallace was found guilty of perjury for giving false testimony and her offense level was therefore increased for obstruction of justice; and (3) White-Baber received a downward departure due to his sickle cell anemia condition. The AUSA concluded her remarks by observing that “there is really no reason not to impose a guideline sentence” and arguing that Wallace should therefore be sentenced within the Guidelines range, i.e., on par with similarly situated offenders nationwide, because such consistency is the very purpose of the federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Immediately after the AUSA’s remarks, the district court declared its sentencing judgment and rationale very succinctly:
It is a tragedy that Barbara Wallace is in court to be sentenced this afternoon. The — she walked the wrong road but corrected it and accomplished something in her life that maybe not all members of her family had. She was active in service as a part of her work to patients. She clearly made one important error, her association with Damien, and she’s here today as a result of that, and it’s a tragedy.
The — I’ve given every careful consideration that I can to any objectively reasonable basis for a departure from the guideline range, fully considering the fact that we are not bound by the guideline range, but nevertheless being able [sic]1 to determine any objectively reasonable predicate for departure below that guideline range that also respects the conclusions that the jury reached. My only hope in imposing the sentence that I believe is appropriate is that you, Ms. Wallace, leave here, understanding that you will have a significant sentence to serve, with the — not only the hope but the confidence that once that’s done, you still have a full life to live and a contribution to make to your children’s lives.
*810Sent. tr. at 19-20, JA 826-27. The district court went on to announce a sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment, at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range.
At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the district court twice asked counsel, per United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872 (6th Cir.2004), if there were any additional objections to the sentence imposed. Twice counsel for defendant Wallace answered, “No, your honor.” On appeal, Wallace contends the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not sufficiently explain, with reference to the § 3553(a) factors, why it was appropriate to sentence Wallace to a prison term more than twice as long as that received by White-Baber. The government correctly contends that, because Wallace did not expressly assert this procedural unreasonableness objection at the time of sentencing, the objection is deemed forfeited and is reviewable on appeal only for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385-86 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc).
The majority opinion fairly explains why the district court’s failure to explicitly address Wallace’s non-frivolous argument for a shorter sentence could be deemed to render the sentence procedurally unreasonable. Yet, the majority observes that the real question is whether there was plain error and acknowledges that plain error review is extremely deferential. Consistent with this deference, the majority recognizes that plain error is remediable only upon a showing of prejudice to defendant’s substantial rights and a showing that the error “affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” The majority goes on to acknowledge that the three justifications for the sentencing disparity identified by the AUSA at the sentencing hearing are “facially legitimate” and “arguably explain the sentencing disparity.” Nonetheless, for reasons wholly unpersuasive, the majority jettisons due deference and strains to conclude that re-sentencing is warranted.
While I agree that the district court should have done a better job of explaining its reasoning, Wallace has not demonstrated how her substantial rights were prejudiced by the district judge’s failure to explain why he rejected her disparity argument. The issues presented by this sentencing were quite simple. The above summary of the parties’ positions fairly embodies the relevant arguments presented to the district court. Both parties’ positions and the court’s assessment and decision occupy less than eleven transcript pages and likely took less than ten minutes’ time. Although the district judge did not explain why he was not sympathetic with Wallace’s disparity argument-apart from saying that it did not represent an objectively reasonable basis for departure from the Guidelines range-it can hardly be argued that he was oblivious to the argument or inadvertently overlooked it, such that he would likely impose a different sentence if he were required to explain on remand. There is no suggestion that the district judge left the bench, fell asleep, or was otherwise distracted from hearing the argument. Considering the simplicity and straightforwardness of Wallace’s argument, it is clear that the district court considered it and intentionally rejected it. And considering that the three justifications for the disparity identified by the AUSA are undisputed and were stated on the record immediately before the district court announced the sentence, the conclusion is practically unavoidable that the district court rejected Wallace’s argument for the very reasons that the AUSA had just recited.
*811There is no manifest reason to believe Wallace’s substantial rights (as opposed to her technical procedural rights) were affected by the district court’s failure to make explicit what was so obviously implicit that Wallace and her attorney did not even bother to object, despite having been given two opportunities to do so. Moreover, inasmuch as Wallace has not shown that her substantial rights were affected, it follows that she has also failed to show that the lack of explanation impugned the “fairness, integrity or public reputation” of the sentencing proceeding. Wallace having thus faded to meet two of the four essential requirements for plain error relief, I would uphold the district court’s judgment of sentence.
This conclusion is supported by the en banc court’s reasoning in Vonner, where we noted that the district court did not specifically address all of Vonner’s arguments and thus failed to ensure that Vonner, the public, and the court of appeals understood why it picked the sentence it did. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 386. Nevertheless, this was held not to constitute remediable “plain error.” The court explained:
Whether the court’s brief explanation for this sentence sufficed or not, any potential error was not “plain.” Although Congress requires a court to give “the reasons” for its sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), it does not say that courts must give the reasons for rejecting any and all arguments by the parties for alternative sentences. The statute also distinguishes between within-guidelines sentences like this one and outside-guidelines sentences, requiring judges to give “the specific reason” for imposing an outside-guidelines sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), but imposing no similar requirement for within-guidelines sentences.
Id. at 387. Here, too, the sentence imposed was within — in fact, at the low end of — the Guidelines range. It was presumptively reasonable. Under such circumstances, as recognized in Vonner, with reference to Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), the law gives greater leeway to the sentencing court:
Consistent with the statute, Rita also suggests a distinction between within- and outside-guidelines sentences, saying that, where a judge imposes a within-guidelines sentence, he “will normally ... explain why he has rejected ... arguments” for a different sentence, but insisting that, “[w]here the judge imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines, the judge will explain why he has done so.” Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468 (emphases added). At the same time that the Court encourages district court judges to give “reasoned” explanations for all sentencing decisions (as indeed do we), it confirms that “[t]he law leaves much, in this respect, to the judge’s own professional judgment.” Id. The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances. Sometimes a judicial opinion responds to every argument; “sometimes it does not.” Id.
That flexibility is particularly relevant when the district court agrees with the Sentencing Commission’s recommendations. “[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation” because “[cjireumstances 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 terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case.” Id.; see also id. at 2469 (“Where a matter is ... conceptually simple ... *812and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.”)- In this setting, the question is whether “[t]he record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument,” “considered the supporting evidence,” was “fully aware” of the defendant’s circumstances and took “them into account” in sentencing him. Id. at 2469.
Vonner, 516 F.3d at 387.
The above reasoning applies with equal force in this case. The district court imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range. By observing that it had been presented with no objectively reasonable basis for departing from the Guidelines range, the district court implied its agreement with the Sentencing Commission’s determination of the appropriate sentence. The disparity objection asserted by Wallace was conceptually simple. The record shows that the court listened to the argument and considered the supporting evidence, and was fully aware of Wallace’s history and characteristics and took them into account. Under such circumstances, a lengthy explanation was not required. And finally, even if the explanation were so deficient as to frustrate meaningful review and therefore constitute procedural error, Wallace has fallen far short of carrying her burden of demonstrating that the error prejudiced her substantial rights and rendered the sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair.
Even though we as appellate judges might very well have been reasonably inclined to vary downward from the advisory Guidelines range if we had the task of sentencing Barbara Wallace in the first instance, this is insufficient reason to hold that the district court abused its discretion and committed remediable plain error by sentencing her at the low end of the range without specifically explaining why her disparity objection was unavailing. I would therefore affirm the district court’s judgment of sentence over defendant Wallace’s procedural unreasonableness challenge.

. Whether the district judge misspoke or the court reporter made a transcription error, it is obvious from context that in place of '‘able," the district judge meant "unable.”