Federal Judiciary

United States v. Baker, No. 05-4693-cr., 2007 WL 40006103 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2007) (found here)

Baker is a rare remand of a Guidelines sentence because the district court made clear that it would only consider imposition of a Guidelines sentence.  Specifically, the Second Circuit found that:

[A]lthough Baker argued that he was entitled to a sentence below the Guidelines range and raised numerous arguments to that effect, the district court made clear from the outset that it would only consider a sentence within the Guidelines.  The district court did not articulate why a Guidelines sentence was appropriate.  More specifically, the district court did not articulate why Baker's conduct merited nine years' imprisonment -- as opposed to the statutory minimum sentence of five years -- beyond the mere fact that nine years' imprisonment is within the Guidelines.  Moreover, the district court did not respond to Baker's arguments in support of a non-Guidelines sentence.

In a word, "[s]entencing judges are not relieved of their obligation to provide their rationale for sentencing because they impose a sentence within the Guidelines. . . . The increased discretion granted to judges by the Booker decision only amplifies the importance of articulating the reasons for a particular sentence and requires sentencing judges' compliance with 3553(c)'s requirements."