Court Opinion

ID: 9559284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:41.253842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:32.079381
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), a sentencing court is expressly required to give its “reasons” for its sentence; that is a requirement of the legislative branch we must insist on maintaining and it did not occur in this case. The court below simply mistakenly failed to mention or acknowledge Wallace’s “disparity” argument. Where a defendant’s main point is stated a few minutes before sentencing, it writes the statutory requirement out of existence to say — contrary to the statute — that the sentencing court need not give any reason regarding the defendant’s main point. Courts are required to follow statutory commands. However we describe the error — plain, unplain, negligent, intentional, obvious, etc. — the statute was violated. I, therefore, concur in Judge Clay’s opinion and disagree with the dissent.