OK, catching up a little.
United States v. Sanchez-Duran, No. 10-5744 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished). Panel of Judges Guy, Kethledge, and White.
Was sentence procedurally unreasonable b/c the sentencing court did not recognize its authority to vary from the guidelines based on a belief that sentencing disparity created by fast-track programs is unwarranted?
The Court cites United States v. Camacho-Arellano, 614 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2010). The Camacho-Arellano court rejected the idea that district courts cannot grant variances based on disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts.
Here, the defendant was sentenced after Kimbrough and Spears, but before Camacho-Arellano came out. So the defendant argued remand was necessary b/c the district court did not recognize its discretion to consider the fast-track argument.
The Court concludes that it was not clear that the district court recognized its discretion to vary categorically from the guidelines based on fast-track disparities. The district court's remarks could be read to suggest the court did not believe it had discretion b/c of prior 6th Cir. precedent.
Camacho-Arellano discredits the argument that fast-track disparity "should not be disturbed because it reflect[s] congressional policy." And the Court will not turn a blind eye to the context in which a district court's statements are made. Even if the district court decision was ambiguous, the Court viewed it in light of the government's urging of an impermissible conclusion (that the court could not depart on the basis of fast-track disparity).
The record suggested that the district court did not believe it could vary based on unwarranted disparity created by fast-track sentencing in other districts. The sentence was procedurally unreasonable and remand necessary.
