09-3060 U.S. v. Paige

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Reasonableness

A 96-month sentence for robbing four banks is not unreasonable.

"Even if the judge did not adequately address these arguments, we regularly affirm sentences where the district judge does not explicitly mention each mitigation argument raised by the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Brock, 433 F.3d 931, 936 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court was not required to address arguments about military service and difficult childhood when it gave adequate reasons supporting its sentence); United States v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 687-88 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court was not required to specifically address defendant's depression, alcohol abuse, and work history). Indeed, sentencing judges must only demonstrate meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the judge's discussion of Paige's difficult childhood and previous convictions, along with his comment that Paige 'does not easily learn a lesson,' make it clear that he gave meaningful consideration to § 3553(a) factors. And on top of that, considering how long sentences are in other cases in federal court, we think a term of only 96 months for four bank robberies, the last ending in a violent chase, was a bargain for Mr. Paige."

Affirmed.

09-3060 U.S. v. Paige

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Evans, J.

Full Text