Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

Where the defendant’s criminal history was V, and his co-defendant’s only II, it was not unreasonable to impose a higher sentence on the defendant.

“In addition to contesting the procedural aspects of his sentencing, Vaughn argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the lesser, seventy-two-month sentence Lockhart received for his role in the conspiracy. True, § 3553(a)(6) requires judges to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But the fact that the district court imposed a lesser sentence on Vaughn’s co-defendant does not mean that Vaughn’s sentence is therefore unreasonable. United States v. Hill, 683 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2012). Vaughn’s criminal history points put him in criminal history category V, whereas Lockhart fell within category II. Moreover, Lockhart’s need for rehabilitation and deterrence was much less pronounced than Vaughn’s. And although Vaughn suggests that he played a lesser role in the conspiracy, the court properly imposed a two-level enhancement for his role as a leader, an enhancement that was not applicable to Lockhart. These distinctions resulted in considerably different guidelines ranges, and the sentencing disparity between them was warranted. Accordingly, we conclude that Vaughn has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines sentence.”

Affirmed.

12-1835 & 12-1947 U.S. v. Vaughn

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Conley, J., Flaum, J.