Court Opinion

ID: 9442204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:39:54.627524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:00.577829
License: Public Domain

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because the district court did not explain adequately his reasoning for imposing a consecutive sentence, I respectfully dissent. Although required to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors in his determination of whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence, the district court failed to mention any of the § 3553(a) factors in this context, much less indicate how they impacted his decision to impose a consecutive sentence. Even without a “distinct obligation” to conduct a separate § 3553(a) analysis for this purpose, United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 343 (6th Cir.2009), a sentencing court must “make[] generally clear the rationale under which it has imposed the consecutive sentence,” United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990, 998 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Owens, 159 F.3d 221, 230 (6th Cir.1998)). The district court gave no indication that the § 3553(a) factors he considered in fashioning the initial sentence also supported his decision to impose a consecutive sentence. Instead, the consecutive-sentence determination was entirely “divorced ... from [the] analysis of the rest of the terms of [Young’s] sentence.” United States v. Ross, 375 Fed.Appx. 502, 507 (6th Cir.2010) (unpublished opinion).
Rather than engaging in an individualized application of § 3553(a) factors to the specific facts of the case, the district court seemed to rely entirely on the recommendation in the sentencing guidelines that Young’s sentences be consecutive. The district court discussed “only ... the court’s concern that a concurrent sentence would preclude an incremental penalty,” which on its own is insufficient to justify consecutive sentences. United States v. Clark, 385 F.3d 609, 625 (6th Cir.2004). Thus, the district court’s statements do not provide us with a sufficient “rationale under which it has imposed the consecutive sentence,” and upon which we base our review. Johnson, 553 F.3d at 998. I would remand so that the district court could properly consider the § 3553(a) factors and explain its rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence.