Federal Judiciary

United States v. Mendez, No. 06-2299-CR., 2007 WL 3407436 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2007)

Reasonable or unreasonable.  That is clearly the question after Booker.  But it is not a question for the district court.  It is solely a question for the circuit court.  But a district court's reference to imposition of a "not unreasonable" sentence is not enough to require a remand for resentencing -- at least so far as the Second Circuit in Mendez is concerned.

Mendez, who pled guilty to illegal reentry, appealed that part of his sentence imposing a prison term of 57 months, at the low end of his 57-71 month advisory Guidelines range.  Mendez principally argued that the district court's observation that a 57 month sentence was not "unreasonable" evidenced a failure to follow the correct standard for determining a sentence -- specifically, a failure to apply the "parsimony clause" of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).

The Second Circuit noted -- correctly - that the reasonableness standard "does not neatly transfer to the district court, which is, of course, obliged to follow a multi-step process and apply independent judgment to the determination of an appropriate sentence."  But it found, based on several prior decisions, that a district court's failure to reference the parsimony clause does not mean that a court ignored its mandate.  And it found that "[n]o different conclusion is warranted in this case simply because the district court referenced 'reasonableness' in imposing sentence.  The sentencing record, viewed in its entirety, convincingly demonstrates the district judge's careful discharge of her sentencing duties."