Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

Criminal

Sentencing

Reasonableness

Where the defendant is a repeat offender, his within-guideline sentence of 262 months was not unreasonable.

“After reviewing a transcript of the sentencing hearing, it is clear that the judge discussed the relevant factors in sufficient detail; unfortunately for the defendant, the analysis was not favorable to him. At various points during the sentencing hearing, the judge referred to Vance’s extensive criminal history and to prison time he had previously served for other convictions. The transcript indicates that the judge took Vance’s status as a repeat offender very seriously. The fact that Vance was incarcerated more than once before and continued to re-offend was a factor that weighed strongly against him in the judge’s calculation of an appropriate sentence. In the judge’s view, the defendant’s experience of serving time and re-offending demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law that needed to be addressed. The decision not to sentence the defendant below the Guidelines reflected these specific concerns.”

Affirmed.

10-3245 U.S. v. Vance

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Bauer, J.