Court Opinion

ID: 9414581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 00:51:52.678192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.897962
License: Public Domain

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur without reservation in the court’s judgment affirming Rodriguez’s conviction. I concur in the affirmance of Rodriguez’s sentence because, under this circuit’s precedent (which the court cites), the district court did not commit plain Booker error when it enhanced Rodriguez’s base offense level for obstruction of justice. The court did not commit plain error because Rodriguez has not satisfied the third prong of the plain-error test; that is, he has not cited (from the record of his sentencing hearing) “some statement of regret by the district court that it was bound to impose the sentence under the guidelines and that it would have sentenced [him] differently but for the guidelines.” Ante at-. In United States v. Thompson, I referred to such statement of regret as “magic words,” 422 F.3d 1285, 1302 (11th Cir.2005) (Tjoflat, J. specially concurring), and explained how a district court statement of regret “fosters disrespect for the rule of law.” Id. at 1304. Were we not bound to adhere to this test, I would find plain error, vacate Rodriguez’s sentence, and remand the case for resentencing in accordance with Booker.