Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

It was not unreasonable for the district court to impose an above-guideline sentence and write 39-page memorandum discussing crime in the city in which the defendant committed his crime.

“The portion of the memorandum that describes the city’s history of corruption and its recent corruption cases is not especially relevant to Molton’s sentence—the memo provides no link between public corruption and gun-related offenses or violent crimes more generally. If the district judge had commented only on corruption and not on Molton’s specific characteristics, we would need to remand; a district judge should consider general deterrence but must also hand down an ‘individualized’ sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. But the judge’s sentencing memorandum also details violent crime in the city, and this consideration is valid as part of the general deterrence analysis. In fact, our cases have often viewed general deterrence as a means of preventing like or related crimes. Thus, the judge’s extended analysis of violent crime in East St. Louis ensured the relevance of the sentencing memorandum.”

Affirmed.

13-2525 U.S. v. Molton

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Flaum, J.