Fourth Circuit (thoughtfully) declares below-guideline sentence unreasonable

The Fourth Circuit today in US v. Moreland, No. 05-4476 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2006) (available here), continued the ugly pattern of reasonableness review in the circuit courts (discussed here and here) — where we are seeing all within-guideline sentences and nearly all above-guidelines sentences being affirmed as reasonable, whereas many below-guideline sentences are being reversed as unreasonable.  But, along the way, the Moreland sets forth a lot of important statements about departure authority and reasonableness review.  Here are some snippets:

We believe, however, that so-called "traditional departures" — i.e., those made pursuant to specific guideline provisions or case law — remain an important part of sentencing even after Booker....

"[R]easonableness" is not a code-word for "rubber stamp."  Our task is a "complex and nuanced" one, Green, 2006 WL 267217, at *5, requiring us to consider the extent to which the sentence imposed by the district court comports with the various, and sometimes competing, goals of § 3553(a)....

Reasonableness review involves both procedural and substantive components. A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable, for example, if the district court provides an inadequate statement of reasons or fails to make a necessary factual finding.  A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the court relies on an improper factor or rejects policies articulated by Congress or the Sentencing Commission.

Generally, if the reasons justifying the variance are tied to § 3553(a) and are plausible, the sentence will be deemed reasonable.  However, when the variance is a substantial one — such as the two-thirds reduction from the bottom of the advisory guideline range that is at issue here — we must more carefully scrutinize the reasoning offered by the district court in support of the sentence.  The farther the court diverges from the advisory guideline range, the more compelling the reasons for the divergence must be.

Turning to the particulars of the sentence imposed by the district court, the Fourth Circuit in Moreland ultimately affirms the decision to grant a Booker variance, but rejects its extent (which was from a guideline minimum of 360 months down to the statutory minimum of 10 years). 

The Moreland Court says "a variance was warranted here" and notes that "[a]pplication of the career offender guideline is fraught with potential imprecision."  However, it also concludes that the circumstances of this case were not "so compelling as to warrant the maximum possible downward variance, i.e., the imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence."  And, interestingly, the Court concludes by remanding "for the imposition of a sentence of no less than 20 years imprisonment."