Court Opinion

ID: 9482366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:47:48.782888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:56.186280
License: Public Domain

KANNE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
As the majority states at page 8: “[tjhis conclusion [that the defendant should have been sentenced as a Criminal History Category IV defendant], if no other, will require a remand to determine the proper extent of any departure.” Having arrived at that conclusion, I believe that the court should not range any further to reach the other issues addressed.
The new sentencing judge should be free to determine the proper extent of any departure based on a fresh examination of the facts. By resolving or suggesting the resolution of the sentencing issues relating to departure, I believe the majority has effectively constructed an “appropriate” sentence and significantly foreclosed the *1279district court’s discretion and ability to resolve those matters in the first instance.
“It is not for us to determine the appropriate sentence here even with the use of the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(2). That must be left to the trial judge’s exercise of discretion within the Guidelines, with a record explanation of how and why the sentence was enhanced.” United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 466, 471 (7th Cir.1989).
I concur in the decision of the court to vacate the sentence given the defendant and the remand for resentencing under Criminal History Category IV. I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which requires the district judge to forego analysis of certain departure considerations and directs consideration of other specific factors.