Notably split Sixth Circuit panel finds way-above guideline felon-in-possession sentence to be substantively unreasonable

Earlier this week, a Sixth Circuit panel handed down a split (unpublished) opinion finding an above-guideline sentence substantively unreasonable in US v. Stanton, No. 20-5320 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021) (available here).  Any and every circuit ruling that finds a sentence substantively unreasonable is quite notable because such opinions are quite rare — for example, USSC data shows only six such reversals in Fiscal Year 2019 and only eight such reversals in Fiscal Year 2020.  (Indeed, with this Sixth Circuit Stanton ruling finding an above-guideline sentence substantively unreasonable handed down on the same day that the Fourth Circuit found a within-guideline sentence substantively unreasonable in Freeman (discussed here, opinion here), one might be tempted to remember March 30, 2021 as an historic day for reasonableness review.)

The majority and dissenting opinions in Stanton are worth full reads, and here is how the majority opinion gets started and wraps up:

Dustin Stanton challenges his 108-month sentence for one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as substantively unreasonable.  Stanton argues that the district court did not provide sufficiently compelling reasons to justify nearly tripling his maximum guideline sentence of 37 months.  We agree.

In sum, based on the reasons it provided at sentencing, the district court “placed too much weight on the § 3553(a) factors concerning criminal history [and] deterrence . . . without properly considering sentencing disparities.”  See Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 758. “By ‘relying on a problem common to all’ defendants within the same criminal history category as [Stanton]—that is, that they have an extensive criminal history — the district court did not give a sufficiently compelling reason to justify [its extreme variance].” Warren, 771 F. App’x at 642 (quoting United States v. Poynter, 495 F.3d 349, 354 (6th Cir. 2007)).  Though Stanton’s continued recidivism and his previous 84-month sentence for the same crime may ultimately warrant an upward variance, they are not — without more — sufficiently compelling justifications for nearly tripling his maximum guideline sentence for a mine-run offense.  See Boucher, 937 F.3d at 714 (vacating sentence as substantively unreasonable and noting that “after the district court reweighs the relevant § 3553(a) factors” the defendant “may or may not be entitled to a” variance).

And here is how Judge Thapar starts and ends his dissent:

District judges are not at liberty to turn a blind eye to reality at sentencing.  Instead, the sentencing factors in the United States Code require judges to consider the real-world consequences of a prison term.  Will the sentence protect the public?  Will it deter the defendant?  What does a defendant’s criminal history tell the court about his likelihood of recidivism?  Are there positive factors that might cut the other way?  The sentencing guidelines help answer these questions.  But district judges understand better than most that the guidelines are not binding for a reason: They don’t fit every case.  Especially one like Dustin Stanton’s.  Here, a conscientious district judge had a violent, repeat offender in front of him.  The last time Stanton was in federal court, Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s colleague sentenced him to 84 months.  Barely a year after his release, Stanton was back — as violent as ever, and for the same offense.  So Judge Crenshaw did what good judges do.  He balanced the sentencing factors and came up with a fair sentence: 108 months.  I respectfully dissent from making him do it again....

Fair sentencing is a key goal of our criminal justice system. The sentencing guidelines help further that goal. Still, district judges must exercise independent judgment when imposing a sentence. Sometimes the reality of a case justifies a variance downward. Sometimes, it justifies the opposite. Here, Judge Crenshaw decided that Stanton’s case called for an upward variance. That decision was reasonable. Thus, I respectfully dissent.