United States v. Carty
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6084, 2008 WL 763770, 520 F.3d 984 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court is not required to, and the Ninth Circuit will not, apply a formal presumption of reasonableness to a criminal sentence that falls within the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Instead, all sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, are reviewed for both procedural error and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Facts:
- Juan Antonio Zavala was involved in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy.
- Zavala was also involved in the distribution of methamphetamine.
- Alphonso Kinzar Carty engaged in abusive sexual contact and aggravated sexual abuse of his minor niece.
- Carty molested his niece on four separate occasions when she was between 14 and 16 years old.
- Carty initially confessed to the acts of molestation but later recanted his confession.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Antonio Zavala was convicted on drug charges in a U.S. District Court and sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment, a variance below the advisory Guidelines range of life.
- Alphonso Kinzar Carty was convicted of sexual abuse in a U.S. District Court and sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range.
- Both Zavala and Carty appealed their sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- After initial panel decisions, the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear both cases en banc to clarify the standard for reviewing federal sentences after United States v. Booker.
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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopt an appellate presumption of reasonableness for a criminal sentence that is imposed within the correctly calculated Federal Sentencing Guidelines range?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Rymer
No. The court declines to adopt a formal appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences imposed within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough, the Guidelines are advisory and serve as the 'starting point' for a district court's analysis. An appellate court's review is twofold: first, it must determine if the district court committed any significant procedural error, such as miscalculating the Guidelines or failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Second, it must assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, considering the totality of the circumstances. While a within-Guidelines sentence will normally be reasonable, creating a formal presumption carries unnecessary evidentiary 'baggage' and is not required.
Concurring - Chief Judge Kozinski
Yes. While the majority opinion claims to reject a presumption of reasonableness, its analysis functions as one. The court's reasoning for affirming Carty's sentence—that there was 'nothing unusual about Carty's circumstances to compel a lower sentence'—is functionally identical to applying a presumption and finding it unrebutted. The opinion's express rejection of the presumption is therefore 'quixotic,' as its practical application confirms the sentence's reasonableness based on its conformity with the Guidelines.
Concurring - Judge Silverman
No. The majority correctly declines to adopt a presumption of reasonableness in these cases, but it errs by creating a rigid, circuit-wide rule prohibiting its use in all future cases. The Supreme Court in Gall explicitly stated that an appellate court 'may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.' This language grants appellate panels case-by-case discretion, not the authority for a circuit to create a blanket prohibition. The majority's holding improperly forecloses this discretion and invites circuit splits, contrary to the Supreme Court's goal of nationwide consistency. A presumption should have been applied in these specific cases to affirm the sentences.
Analysis:
This en banc decision establishes the definitive framework for federal sentencing review in the Ninth Circuit after Booker. By rejecting a formal presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes itself from several other circuits, placing a greater emphasis on the district court's individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors. While the practical effect may be minimal, as the court acknowledges such sentences are usually reasonable, the ruling reinforces that the Guidelines are truly advisory and not entitled to a special procedural advantage on appeal. This ensures that every sentence appeal requires a thorough review of both the procedural steps taken and the substantive justification, rather than relying on a presumptive starting point.
