U.S.A. v. Boleware

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Curtin

    78 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2023)   Cited 19 times

    Quoting and citing a handful of pre-Gall decisions from other circuits, the Pugh panel noted in dicta that " '[a] sentence may be substantively unreasonable when,' " among other reasons, the district court "bases the sentence on impermissible factors." 515 F.3d at 1191-92 (quoting Ward, 506 F.3d at 478, and citing United States v. Ausburn, 502 F.3d 313, 328 (3d Cir. 2007), United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2007), and United States v. Boleware, 498 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 2007)). The panel never offered any of its own reasons why consideration of an impermissible factor should be viewed as bearing on a sentence's substantive (as opposed to procedural) reasonableness.

  2. U.S. v. Pugh

    515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,117 times
    Holding a "non-custodial sentence" unreasonable and noting that the district court "minimized—and in some instances, ignored—many ... important Section 3553 concerns"

    Likewise, "[a] sentence may be substantively unreasonable when the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors [or] fails to consider pertinent section 3553(a) factors." Ward, 506 F.3d at 478 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ausburn, 502 F.3d 313, 328 (3d Cir. 2007) (asking if the district court: (1) exercised its discretion by giving meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors; and (2) applied those factors reasonably by selecting a sentence grounded on reasons logical and consistent with the factors) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2007) (asking if sentence: "(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors") (citation omitted); United States v. Boleware, 498 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 2007) (same). We hasten to add that while the application of these analyses may suggest an unreasonable sentence, they do not necessarily make a sentence unreasonable: Gall itself found that the district court did not commit reversible error simply because it "attached great weight" to a single factor.

  3. U.S. v. Otterson

    506 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    While we will continue to urge sentencing courts to provide ample discussion for our review, we have held that the mechanical recitation of sentencing factors is unnecessary. United States v. Boleware, 498 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 2007) ("`[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so Will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.'" (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468)).