Court Opinion

ID: 9438914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:10:28.226255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:00.334353
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The sentencing judge took Scott’s arguments into account and adequately explained the reasons for the sentence she imposed, and the judgment should be affirmed for that reason. I write separately to note my disagreement with the unnecessary position the majority takes that a district judge can never consider arguments relating to an unindicted coconspirator under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The parties did not even brief that issue, and it is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal.
This is a straightforward case: Scott claims he made an argument regarding his unindicted coconspirator that was not taken into account by the judge as a § 3553(a) consideration when it should have been. The conclusion is also straightforward: Scott did fairly (if inartfully) make such an argument under the rubric of § 3553(a), the argument was not frivolous, and the judge adequately addressed it. Having so *411ruled, there is no need to go further and posit that sentencing courts can never take an argument regarding an unindieted conspirator into account under their broad § 3553(a) discretion.
I concur in the judgment because I believe that Scott’s arguments were adequately considered and addressed by the district court under § 3553(a). The disposition of this case does not hinge on any holding beyond that.