Court Opinion

ID: 9482186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:42:52.492306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:49.343528
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
As one who believes the district court should be given the maximum discretion in fixing sentences, I should applaud the result in this case, but I cannot because I am not willing to ignore the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), which requires that the district court state its reasons for imposing its sentence. Here, the district court not only failed to give any reasons for denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, but made no findings on the matter. While the court can derive some comfort from United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629 (8th Cir.1991), I do not believe that case can be read to support the proposition that a district judge need not give any reason for rejecting a request for acceptance of responsibility.
Dortch involved an increase for obstruction of justice. At the time Dortch was sentenced, an obstruction enhancement precluded a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Thus, the district court in Dortch necessarily resolved the acceptance of responsibility question when it enhanced the defendant’s sentence for obstruction. The Dortch panel did not announce a general rule. Instead, it noted the district court should make specific factual findings but added that
[i]n the present case, we agree with the government that even though the district court made no express findings, it is implicit in the sentence actually imposed by the district court that the district court rejected appellant’s arguments and resolved the disputed issues against him.
*1373Id. at 633. Unlike Dortch, this case does not involve the interplay between an obstruction of justice enhancement and a credit for acceptance of responsibility. Therefore, we cannot infer how or why the district court declined to grant Patterson credit for acceptance of responsibility.
Specific factual findings are required by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) provides that “the court at the time of sentencing should state the reason for the imposition of the particular sentence.” This requirement does not arise because of a fetish for formality, but because meaningful appellate review requires it. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(3)(B).
If we do not remand for resentencing here, the Dortch exception will not only swallow the rule stated in section 3553(c), but also will make a dead letter out of Dortch’s own recommendation in favor of specific factual findings. The lesson the district courts will take from this case is that it is better to be silent than to give a reason for sentencing: you can be reversed for an improper reason you articulate, but you will not be reversed if you are silent.
We should remand this case to the district court for resentencing. At that time the district court can either grant or deny a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and give its reason for taking either action. If the reason is inappropriate, we may have another appeal. If not, the case will be closed.1

. I agree with the court that Patterson’s ineffective assistance claim should be raised in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.