District court must explain reasons for imposing sentence that is different from guideline range

SENTENCING United States v. Pena-Hermosillo, No. 06-8075, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 2008)(Wyoming). Government appeal of district court’s decision to sentence defendant to 121 months in prison, well below applicable sentencing guidelines range, for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine with intent to distribute. HELD: District court erred in denying sentence enhancements sought by government for defendant’s leader/manager role and use of minor in drug trafficking activities. In addition to improperly denying introduction of actual evidence relevant to enhancements, district court did not make procedurally adequate ruling on disputed issues. Moreover, even under district court’s alternative rationale invoking 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors to sentence below guidelines advisory range, sentence imposed was procedurally unreasonable because court’s short explanation did not justify extent of variance. District court has discretion to vary from sentencing guidelines and tailor sentence in light of statutory concerns, but court has obligation to explain specific reason for imposing sentence different from guideline range. Read the opinion here.