Sentence 471% higher than applicable sentencing guideline range is reasonable

SENTENCING United States v. Mateo, No. 05-2266, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 26, 2006)(New Mexico). Appeal of sentence for conviction of single count of being felon in possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). HELD: (1) District court did not err by considering uncontested facts in presentence report relating to prior arrests that did not result in convictions in order to impose sentence above calculated guidelines range. District court properly extrapolated from uncontested facts in presentence report — including number, frequency, and seriousness of defendant’s various arrests and convictions —to draw conclusions about characteristics relevant to sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by using those facts to determine adequacy of advisory guidelines sentencing range in fulfilling relevant sentencing objectives described in § 3553(a)(2). (2) Defendant’s 120 month sentence, while extreme, is reasonable even though it is 471% higher than guideline sentencing range of 15 to 21 months. District court properly derived sentence by looking to Armed Career Criminal Act for guidance in determining appropriate sentence after concluding that criminal history exhibited by defendant’s prior arrests was similar to typical armed career criminal. Read the opinion here.