Peer Pressure? Guidelines Presumptively Reasonable in the Sixth Circuit

Today the Sixth Circuit succumbed to peer pressure and held that the guidelines are presumptively reasonable. In today's opinion, United States v. Leonard Williams, -- F.3d --, No. 05-5416 (6th Cir. January 31, 2006), (opinion available here), Judge Cook writing for the panel stated:




Although several of our sister circuits have concluded that any sentence within the applicable Guidelines range garners a presumption of reasonableness, this court has yet to articulate what weight should be accorded the Guidelines relative to the other sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a). See United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 n.9 (6th Cir. 2005) (declining "to indicate what weight the district courts must give to the appropriate Guidelines range, or any other § 3553(a) factor"); see also id. at 385 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). We now join several sister circuits in crediting sentences properly calculated under the Guidelines with a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. Such a presumption comports with the Supreme Court’s remedial decision in Booker. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 757 (2005) (holding that the modified Federal Sentencing Act "requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, but . . . permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well" (citation omitted)).

Judge Cook went on to illustrate that this presumption shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that the guideline sentence is unreasonable. The last line of the opinion sums it up:

In the absence of a showing that the district court imposed an “unreasonable” sentence, we affirm.
What is notable about the adoption of the rebuttable presumption standard in this case is the total lack of any real legal reasoning and a passing reference to Booker as support for shifting the burden to the defendant to show that a guideline sentence is unreasonable. One might argue that to shift the burden to the defendant to show that a guideline sentence is unreasonable is nothing more than another way of approving of a mandatory guideline regime, which, Booker clearly prohibits.

Update:

February 1, 2006, 11:55 a.m. CST

One of my esteemed colleagues, Sumter Camp, added some comments to my post and I thought they were important enough to place in the post itself so that everyone could benefit. Sumter wrote:


This opinion is contrary to a number of other Sixth Circuit
cases defining either the standard of review or the procedure the Court will use to review for reasonableness. See, e.g. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 fn 9 (6th Cir. 7/19/05), which states, "we also decline to hold that a sentence within a proper Guidelines range is per-se reasonable. Such a per-se test is not only inconsistent with the meaning of 'reasonableness’, (cite omitted), but is also inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, as such a standard ‘would effectively re-institute mandatory adherence to the Guidelines.’"; See, also, the description of appellate review in United States v. McBride, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 89159 (6th Cir. 1/17/06), e.g., "A district court’s failure to explicitly consider the section 3553(a) factors without other evidence in the record demonstrating that they were thoroughly considered by the district court would result in a procedurally unreasonable sentencing determination requiring us to vacate and remand for resentencing." Slip Op. 4, fn. 3. The court in Williams goes out of its way to reach an issue that should have been precluded by the Circuit's rule prohibiting one panel from over-ruling another panel's decision. Hopefully, Williams will ask for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc given that the Circuit's law was clear before this opinion, but has now been muddied.

Thanks Sumter!

Note: Mr. Williams is represented by Dianne Smothers, AFPD, Western District of Tennessee, who has assured me that rehearing and/or reahearing en banc will be sought.

4 comments:

Sumter Camp said...

This opinion is contrary to a number of other Sixth Circuit cases defining either the standard of review or the procedure the Court will use to review for reasonableness. See, e.g. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 fn 9 (6th Cir. 7/19/05), which states, “we also decline to hold that a sentence within a proper Guidelines range is per-se reasonable. Such a per-se test is not only inconsistent with the meaning of ‘reasonableness’, (cite omitted), but is also inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, as such a standard ‘would effectively re-institute mandatory adherence to the Guidelines.’”; See, also, the description of appellate review in United States v. McBride, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 89159 (6th Cir. 1/17/06), e.g., “A district court’s failure to explicitly consider the section 3553(a) factors without other evidence in the record demonstrating that they were thoroughly considered by the district court would result in a procedurally unreasonable sentencing determination requiring us to vacate and remand for resentencing.” Slip Op. 4, fn. 3. The court in Williams goes out of its way to reach an issue that should have been precluded by the Circuit's rule prohibiting one panel from over-ruling another panel's decision. Hopefully, Williams will ask for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc given that the Circuit's law was clear before this opinion, but has now been muddied.

Anonymous said...

[color=#58a]Good site. Thank you!
[url=http://www.google.co.uk/pda?q=Ringtone+site:theaircraftfinder.com&hl=en]Ringtone[/url]
[url=http://www.google.com/pda?q=Ringtone+site:theaircraftfinder.com]Ringtone free[/url]
[url=http://www.google.com/pda/preferences?q=Ringtone+site:theaircraftfinder.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Ringtone free and[/url]
[url=http://www.foren-dienst.de/cgi-bin/forenserver/foren/F_10484/cutecast.pl]Ringtone all[/url]
[url=http://www.xa-board.com/cgi-bin/foren/foren/F_5313/cutecast.pl]Ringtone info[/url]
[url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/mnbvcxzhuyjuh/]Download free lg ringtone[/url] [url=http://yourisgood.org/].[/url]
G'night[/color]

Anonymous said...

Hello.Best site in bleep! My thnx to webmasters.
2285 free nokia ringtone tracfone
2270 free metro pcs ringtone
2270 download free nokia ringtone
2260 download free nokia ringtone
2128i nokia ringtone
2128i free nokia ringtone
2126 nokia ringtone tracfone
2126 nokia ringtone
2126 free nokia ringtone tracfone
2126 free nokia ringtone
2125i nokia ringtone
2125i metro nokia pcs ringtone
2125i free nokia ringtone
200 ringtone sanyo scp sprint
20 motorola ringtone v265
20 lg ringtone verizon vx6000 wireless
20 lg ringtone verizon vx6000
20 lg ringtone verizon vx3200
20 free lg ringtone vx6000
20 free lg ringtone verizon wireless
20 free lg ringtone verizon vx6000
20 free lg phone ringtone verizon wireless
20 free lg phone ringtone verizon vx6000
20 free lg phone ringtone verizon vx3200
20 free lg phone ringtone verizon
20 download free lg ringtone
20 alltel free lg ringtone
20 3200 lg ringtone verizon wireless
2 pac real ringtone
2 mobile ringtone sidekick t
2 maker ringtone
2 magix maker ringtone
2 free mobile ringtone sidekick t
2 download ringtone sidekick software
17 download mobile ringtone
1600 nokia ringtone
1600 mobile nokia phone ringtone
1600 free nokia ringtone
1600 free germany nokia ringtone
1600 composer nokia ringtone
1400 free lg ringtone
1400 cingular free lg ringtone
131 caller maxis ringtone
1300 free lg ringtone
1300 cingular free lg ringtone
1221 free nokia ringtone tracfone
120t motorola ringtone
120t free motorola ringtone
120e free motorola ringtone
120e free keypress motorola ringtone
G'night

Anonymous said...

Hi all!Very good site. Thank you!

[url=http://ringtone-and.blogspot.com/]ringtone for cellular phone[/url]
[url=http://ringtone-all.blogspot.com/] mobile phone ringtone[/url]
[url=http://tmobile-hdygrt.blogspot.com/]verizon ringtone[/url]
[url=http://malay-ringtone.blogspot.com/]download maker ringtone ok[/url]
[url=http://bollywood-ringtone-zxcd.blogspot.com/]is free verizon ringtone[/url]
[url=http://blackberry-ringtone.blogspot.com/]and mosquito ringtone [/url]

G'night