Twice in a Week, Federal Appeals Court Axes Sentence, Remands to New Judge
It’s unusual for a federal appeals court not only to reject a judge’s sentence but remand the case to another jurist for re-sentencing.
But it’s now happened at least twice within one week: After the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ skewering on Friday of a federal judge in Chicago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar rebuke today of a federal judge in Seattle.
U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour abused his discretion when he gave a too-lenient 22-year prison term to convicted would-be Los Angeles International Airport bomber Ahmed Ressam after a previous remand, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit says in its written opinion (PDF).
“We conclude that the district court committed procedural error, the majority explains, “in failing to address specific, nonfrivolous arguments raised by the government in imposing a sentence that is well below the advisory sentencing guidelines range.” The court also “clearly erred,” the opinion states, by crediting a version of the defendant’s life story presented by his lawyer even though it conflicted with information provided in a pre-sentence investigation report.
The report includes “voluminous factual findings” showing that Ressam “has led a life of crime dedicated to terrorist causes,” the opinion says, noting that one of the government arguments the judge failed to address is a need to protect the public in sentencing Ressam.
Calling the sentence “both procedurally and substantially unreasonable,” the panel exercises its supervisory discretion and says the case is to be assigned to a different judge when Ressam is next resentenced.
As in the similar 7th Circuit case, however, the 9th Circuit panel was divided. A brief dissenting opinion says the Ressam case creates an “especially tempting” situation for an appellate court to reverse on the basis of the sentence its member judges would have themselves imposed. While Coughenour did not expressly discuss his evaluation of the need to protect the public in his sentencing opinion, for instance, the record indicates that the judge did consider this factor, the dissent states.
A 22-year sentence, it notes, “is not a mere slap on the wrist,” especially under the likely harsh confinement conditions that may apply in Ressam’s case.
“The point is that there are many sites within the borders of reasonable sentencing territory,” it concludes, “and our job is to patrol those borders to assure that the district court has not slipped over them and into the land of abuse of discretion. That will rarely happen; it did not happen here.”
Statutory sentencing guidelines called for a prison term of between 65 years to life and a maximum of 130 years in Ressam’s case, the 9th Circuit majority notes.
Hat tip: Los Angeles Times.
Additional coverage:
Seattle Times: “Court: Ressam sentence ‘failed to protect public’”
Updated on Feb. 3 to link to subsequent Seattle Times article.
