Court Opinion

ID: 9852794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:36:58.627689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:34.610862
License: Public Domain

SUTTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the majority’s disposition of this appeal and with its reasoning in addressing each of the questions raised, save one: Did the district court fail to satisfy § 3553(c)(2)’s requirement that it state in open court and in the written judgment the reasons for selecting a sentence one month above the 41-month advisory guidelines range? I agree with the majority that the district court failed to satisfy this requirement, but I see no reason to decide whether that shortcoming amounts to plain error.
The government never asked us to apply plain-error review to this claim, which by itself is reason enough not to apply this standard to the issue. Cf. United States v. Chiles, 137 Fed.Appx. 870, 872 n. 2 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Fuller, 77 Fed.Appx. 371, 380 n. 9 (6th Cir.2003). Making matters easier, the government failed to respond at all to this allegation of error. I therefore see no reason to do anything more than confirm the error and ask the district court to correct it.
The majority instead takes on the question of whether and when a violation of § 3553(c)(2)’s reason-giving requirement rises to the level of plain error. Three circuits have held that it does. See In re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188, 192-93 (D.C.Cir.2008); United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239, 245-49 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Acevedo, 219 Fed.Appx. 828, 832-33 (10th Cir.2007). And at least one circuit has held that it does not, at least where “the record, viewed in its entirety, reasonably justifies the sentence imposed,” because such an error does not “affect[] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Gant, 220 Fed.Appx. 588, 589-90 & n. 1 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Robaina, 194 Fed.Appx. 735, 739 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that a district court’s failure to satisfy § 3553(c)(2) was not plain error because circuit precedent required “there [to] be binding precedent clearly holding that it is such”); cf. United States v. Gonzalez-Delgado, 271 Fed.Appx. 837, 840 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (holding that a district court’s failure to provide a written statement of reasons affected “neither [the defendant’s] substantial rights nor the fairness of the judicial proceeding” where the defendant “was told the reasons for his above-Guidelines sentences ... [and] the record provides adequate information from which he was able to challenge his sentence on appeal”). Before taking sides on how to approach this question, I would prefer to wait until the issue has been raised by the parties, it has been briefed and it makes a difference to the outcome of the case. The majority seeing this matter differently, I respectfully concur only in the judgment on this issue.