Substantial variance from sentencing guidelines on grounds already accounted for in guidelines calculations produces unreasonable sentence

SENTENCING United States v. Hildreth, No. 06-3070, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. May 14, 2007)(Kansas). Defendant’s appeal of conviction for possessing machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and government’s cross-appeal of sentence. HELD: Where district court imposed sentence of three years probation because of defendant’s lack of prior criminal activity, employment history, and family responsibilities, but sentencing guidelines range was 27 to 33 months imprisonment, sentence was unreasonable because: (1) defendant’s criminal history and characteristics as well as nature of offense were already part of guidelines calculation; and (2) substantial variance from applicable guidelines range undermines uniformity in sentencing and does not accord weight to statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Read the opinion here.