Six day sentence for drug conspiracy and using telephone to facilitate drug trafficking offense is unreasonable

SENTENCING United States v. Cage, No. 05-2079, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jun. 8, 2006). Government appeal of defendant’s six day sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and using telephone to facilitate drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(a), § 846, and § 843(b). HELD: Sentence of six days imprisonment instead of forty-two month sentence as calculated under federal sentencing guidelines was unreasonable. Because sentencing decisions under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), represent a balance between competing values of Sixth Amendment, an appellate court reviewing sentencing decisions must take into account not only individual factors that determine reasonableness listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but also should give particular advisory weight to judgments made by political process represented in federal sentencing guidelines. Where district court effectively ignores advice of sentencing guidelines that crimes of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and using telephone to facilitate drug trafficking merit substantial term in prison, sentence is reasonable application 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors only if facts of case are dramatic enough to justify such divergence from politically-derived guideline range. Although facts of defendant’s case may justify some deviation from advisory guidelines range, they simply are not dramatic enough to warrant such an extreme downward variance (i.e., six days imprisonment versus forty-two months). As such, district court’s sentencing decision is unreasonable. Read the opinion here.