Rita v. United States
127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that is within the range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. This appellate presumption is permissible because both the Sentencing Commission and the sentencing judge have determined that such a sentence is appropriate under the statutory factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Facts:
- Victor Rita was investigated by a federal grand jury concerning his purchase of a 'parts kit' from a gun company, InterOrdnance.
- Prosecutors believed the kits could be assembled into illegal machineguns and that InterOrdnance had imported them improperly.
- When contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Rita agreed to let an agent inspect his parts kit.
- Before the meeting with the agent, Rita called InterOrdnance and sent the original kit back to the company.
- Rita subsequently turned over a different, non-machinegun kit to the ATF agent, implying it was the one he had originally purchased.
- Testifying under oath before the grand jury, Rita falsely denied that the ATF agent had requested the specific InterOrdnance kit and that he had spoken to anyone at InterOrdnance about it.
- Rita's false statements formed the basis of his criminal charges.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Rita was charged by the government in federal district court with perjury, making false statements, and obstructing justice.
- Following a trial, a jury found Rita guilty on all counts.
- A probation officer prepared a presentence report calculating an advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 33-to-41 months' imprisonment.
- At the sentencing hearing, Rita argued for a sentence below the Guidelines range based on his poor health, military service, and vulnerability in prison.
- The district court sentenced Rita to 33 months in prison, the lowest end of the advisory Guidelines range.
- Rita, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing his sentence was unreasonable.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to the within-Guidelines sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Rita's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the use of such a presumption.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the law permit a federal court of appeals to apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that falls within the range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. The law permits a court of appeals to apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that falls within the properly calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. This is an appellate presumption, not a binding evidentiary one, that recognizes the 'double determination' of reasonableness by both the Sentencing Commission (which created the Guidelines to reflect statutory goals) and the sentencing judge (who applied them to the specific case). The presumption is justified because the Guidelines are the product of an expert agency tasked with embodying the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Furthermore, this system does not violate the Sixth Amendment post-Booker because the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory; a judge is never required to impose a Guidelines sentence or to find facts to do so. The district court here provided a legally sufficient, though brief, statement of reasons for the sentence, and the sentence itself was substantively reasonable.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. While a presumption of reasonableness for a within-Guidelines sentence is permissible under the abuse-of-discretion standard established in Booker, the presumption must be genuinely rebuttable. District judges must still conduct an individualized assessment of all § 3553(a) factors, many of which the Guidelines do not consider, such as military service or family ties. Appellate courts owe deference to the sentencing judge's decision, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range. Although the district judge in this case committed a 'serious omission' by failing to mention Rita's distinguished military service in his sentencing explanation, the sentence was not an abuse of discretion and should be affirmed.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. Although I concur in the judgment, the Court's endorsement of substantive reasonableness review reintroduces the very Sixth Amendment defect that United States v. Booker sought to eliminate. If an appellate court can reverse a sentence as 'unreasonably high,' it means that certain sentences are only lawful if supported by judge-found facts, which violates the right to a jury trial. To avoid this constitutional problem, appellate review of sentences should be limited to procedural reasonableness—ensuring the district court followed the correct steps—not substantive reasonableness. Because the District Court's procedures were sound in this case, the sentence should be affirmed, but the Court's broader reasoning on substantive review is constitutionally flawed.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. A presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences undermines the Sixth Amendment protections affirmed in Apprendi and Booker. This presumption creates a 'substantial gravitational pull' on district judges, encouraging them to sentence within the Guidelines range to avoid reversal on appeal. This, in turn, makes the advisory Guidelines quasi-mandatory and perpetuates the practice of judges, rather than juries, finding the facts necessary to impose higher sentences. To preserve the practical value of the jury-trial right, sentences should be reviewed for reasonableness on the same standard, regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the appellate review framework for federal sentences after United States v. Booker. By endorsing an appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences, the Court provided a practical standard that promotes the congressional goal of sentencing uniformity. However, the fractured opinions reveal a deep, unresolved tension regarding the Sixth Amendment implications of judicial fact-finding in an advisory Guidelines system. Justice Scalia's concurrence, in particular, argues that any substantive review of sentences reintroduces the constitutional error of Booker, foreshadowing future challenges to sentences that are upheld as 'reasonable' based on facts not found by a jury.
