Court Opinion

ID: 9498230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:11:49.039075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:42.176653
License: Public Domain

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge,
with whom MELLOY, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring.
I concur with the court’s opinion. However, I write separately to emphasize that harmless error review of a Booker error under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is separate and distinct from the reasonableness review mandated by Booker.
As in Henderson, the court’s opinion holds that the mandatory application of the guidelines was harmless because Hart “received a downward departure to a reasonable sentence.” I believe that implicit in our holding today, and in Henderson, is an understanding that the district court, having properly departed downward, could have departed to a lower reasonable sentence but, instead, chose to impose the sentence it pronounced. Consequently, the government carried its burden of proving that the district court would not have imposed a lower sentence under advisory guidelines. I do not believe that Henderson or today’s decision should be read to hold that the Booker error is harmless merely because the ultimate sentence is reasonable.
In this case, I would make the harmless error analysis more explicit. The district court granted Hart’s motion for a downward departure (which the government *840does not appeal) to a sentencing range of 30 to 87 months and imposed a sentence of 36 months. Because the court chose to impose a sentence at the higher end of an appropriately calculated guidelines range when it was free to impose a lower sentence within that range, I agree that the government has carried its burden of proving that Hart would not have received a lower sentence under advisory guidelines. Accordingly, I agree that the Booker error in this case was harmless.