Court Opinion

ID: 9414399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 00:10:59.404634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.035184
License: Public Domain

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur with the majority’s opinion, except for the stated standard of review for Sentencing Guidelines interpretation. See Majority Op. at---. For the reasons stated in my concurrence in United States v. Creech, No. 04-40354, 2005 WL 1022435, at *9 (5th Cir. May 3, 2005), I do *631not agree that we review a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. While endorsed in Villegas, this standard is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, which requires appellate courts to review sentencing decisions for unreasonableness. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 767. Because I agree that the district court in this case correctly interpreted the Sentencing Guidelines, I conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519 (“Given the deference due the sentencing judge’s discretion under the Booker/Fanfan regime, it will be rare for a reviewing court to say [a sentence in which the district court properly applied the Guidelines] is ‘unreasonable.’ ”).
Accordingly, I concur in the majority opinion except with respect to the stated de novo standard of review.