Sentencing – reasonableness

Sentencing – reasonableness

A 20-year sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm is not unreasonable.

“Pollock argues that ‘[t]he district court’s cursory attention to the § 3553(a) factors provides this Court with no in-formation as to why Pollock received a 20-year sentence and therefore hinders meaningful appellate review.’ Appellant Br. at 33. We disagree. A ‘district court is not required to re-cite and address each of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, or all of a defendant’s arguments for a lighter sentence.’ United States v. Lyons, 733 F.3d 777, 785 (7th Cir. 2013). ‘[T]he sentencing judge can discuss the application of the statutory factors to the defendant not in checklist fashion but instead in the form of an adequate statement of the judge’s reasons, consistent with section 3553(a), for thinking the sentence that he has selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant.’ United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005). It is clear from reviewing the district court’s statements—including those noted below—that it found the serious nature of Pollock’s crimes to be a key factor.”

Affirmed.

13-2764 U.S. v. Pollock

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Shadid, J., Lawrence, J.

Full Text