Supervised release; reimprisonment
Where the district court gave no explanation for imposing a sentence of reimprisonment far in excess of the guideline range, the sentence must be vacated.
“In the present case the judge didn’t say enough to indicate that he considered either the statutory sentencing factors or the policy statement. Not that he had to cite chapter and verse. But he didn’t even say that he disagreed with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on punishment for violations of supervised release or that he feared that a term shorter than 60 months would fail to deter the defendant from growing marijuana after his release from prison. He also said nothing in response to the defendant’s argument that the statutory sentencing factors favored a lighter sentence because he was 59 years old, had served ‘99.8%’ of his term of supervised release, and had been gainfully employed lawfully throughout that eight-year period. Maybe the argument was too weak to merit discussion, but the judge didn’t say that either.”
Vacated and Remanded.
10-3543 U.S. v. Robinson
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert J., Posner, J.