05-1302 & 05-1303 U.S. v. Bokhari

Listen to this article

“Instead, it appears that the district court judge arrived at only an estimate of the total offense level, which he considered to be ‘around’ level 26 or 27 for each of the defendants. For instance, the district court judge stated the following when sentencing Qasim Bokhari: ‘If one were to look at the Guidelines one would say, well, there is a 29 range at this juncture. And if it took into account considerations of ruling on the objections, and giving you credit for the — for the lack of a sophisticated laundering effort, the lack of role in offense, the Court would still have you somewhere in the 26 range in that type of analysis.’ (R.118: 35:9-15) (emphasis added).

“Simply put, the sentencing record here lacks sufficient clarity for this court to determine how—or if—the district court made final rulings on the defendants’ objections to the PSR, much less the district court’s methodology and final determinations pertaining to total offense level under the Guidelines. This is not a mere academic exercise. Without specific information pertaining to the district court’s calculation of the total offense level, we cannot determine whether the sentence falls within the Guidelines range (and therefore is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness) or whether it falls outside of the recommended range (and therefore requires sufficient additional reasoning from the district court). See Dean, 414 F.3d at 727-28. Nor can we determine where the sentence falls in relation to the upper and lower bands within a particular recommended sentencing range. We need this information to review the sentences for reasonableness and to consider whether any errors by the district court were merely harmless error. See LaShay, 417 F.3d at 719.”

Vacated and Remanded.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Williams, J.