United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Sentencing — reasonableness
Even though the sentencing judge did not specifically discuss a mitigation argument, the sentence is affirmed.
“Castaldi’s strongest argument on appeal is that the district judge said too little about one important mitigation argument, the fact that he told the government about his scheme and cooperated with its investigation. The judge’s few references to this argument give us pause under United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which instruct district courts to address expressly a defendant’s principal arguments in mitigation. In Cunningham and many other cases, however, we have also made clear that a judge imposing sentence ‘need not belabor the obvious’ or be explicit where anyone acquainted with the facts would have known without being told why the judge did not accept the argument. E.g., United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2010), citing Cunningham, 429 F.3d at 679. That is the case here. The sentencing transcript shows that the judge was well aware of all the mitigation arguments, including Castaldi’s disclosure and cooperation, and that the judge gave thoughtful and individualized consideration to the case. The transcript makes clear that the judge found that the devastating financial harm Castaldi inflicted on the family members, friends, and neighbors he victimized simply overwhelmed all of his arguments in mitigation. We need not remand so that the judge can belabor the obvious in a new sentencing hearing. Castaldi’s remaining arguments on appeal also are not persuasive. We therefore affirm his sentence.”
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Hamilton, J.