After Booker, all sentences, including those within sentencing guidelines range, are subject to appellate review for reasonableness

SENTENCING United States v. Sanchez-Juarez, No. 05-2295, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. May 3, 2006)(New Mexico). Appeal of sentence for: (1) illegal reentry by deported alien after conviction of aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(2); and (2) aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1028A. HELD: (1) After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), any unreasonable sentence, whether it falls within or outside the now-advisory Guidelines range, is “imposed in violation of law” and thus is reviewable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). (2) Requirement that existed prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that district court provide sufficient reasons to allow meaningful appellate review of their discretionary sentencing decisions continues to apply in post-Booker context. Where defendant raises nonfrivolous argument that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warrant below-Guidelines sentence and defendant expressly requests such sentence, record must be sufficient to show that sentencing judge did not rest on guidelines alone, but considered whether guidelines sentence actually conforms to statutory factors. Read the opinion here.