Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Sentencing — reasonableness

Sentencing — reasonableness

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

Where the district court gave no reasons for imposing the sentence it did, the sentence is procedurally infirm.

“Both during the sentencing hearing and in its order, the district court simply acknowledged that it had considered the PSR, the guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and both sides’ arguments, and then imposed sentence. We have held that ‘[a] rote statement that the judge considered all relevant factors will not always suffice’ to meet the district court’s statutory obligations. Cunningham, 429 F.3d at 679. The only elaboration on that ‘rote statement’ the district court provided, in either the sentencing hearing or its order, was its remark that the ‘sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary.’ This partial boilerplate naturally raises the question of which particular goals the sentence achieved—‘necessary’ for what?—and why this precise sentence met those ends. The record gives no indication of how the district court weighed the various sentencing factors, or what facts supported the exercise of its discretion. The sentence is procedurally infirm.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

12-2905 U.S. v. Lyons

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Myerscough, J., Tinder, J.

Leave a Comment