Sentencing – Reasonableness

Listen to this article

Sentencing – Reasonableness

Where the district court addressed the defendant’s request that the court consider the effect of her sentence on her family, the sentencing was procedurally reasonable.

“Thi also faults the district court for not taking into account the adverse effect her imprisonment will have on her family—especially her (and Danh’s) young daughter—because the Guidelines encourage courts to consider whether a defendant’s incarceration will result in a ‘loss of caretaking’ that ‘substantially exceeds’ the typical harm of incarceration. See U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6, cmt. n.1(B)(ii); United States v. O’Doherty, 643 F.3d 209, 215-16 n.3 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 839 (7th Cir. 2009). Thi emphasizes that her three-year-old daughter faces not only the incarceration of both parents, but also a cross-country relocation to live with a grandmother who speaks little English and comes from a different cultural background.

Thi’s circumstances indeed are unusual in that both parents face prison time, see United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010), and the court’s discussion about this issue is bare-bones: it remarked only that Thi is a ‘young mother’ and did not mention the possibility of Danh’s imprisonment. But the court also recommended that Thi serve her below-range prison term ‘as close as possible to her family’ and in a ‘residential reentry center’ (a halfway house)—recommendations that may allow for outside visitation opportunities.

Although it might have been helpful for the court to say more, the court said enough to satisfy us that it understood and took account of Thi’s family circumstances. See Gary, 613 F.3d at 710; Poetz, 582 F.3d at 839-40.”

Affirmed.

11-3004 U.S. v. Thi

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text