District Court Erred When Imposing Sentence, But Error Was Harmless

U.S. v. Arrevalo-Olvera, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 2181514 (10th Cir. July 31, 2007)
The Tenth Circuit agreed with the defendant that the district court incorrectly stated that it must find a within guidelines sentence unreasonable before it grants a variant sentence below the guidelines. However, the error was harmless, as demonstrated by the district court’s imposition of a sentence 3 months higher than the low end of the advisory guidelines range. The 10th rejected Defendant’s argument that because the 3 months reflected the district court’s decision to increase D’s sentence based upon his violent past, if the court had understood its discretion, the threshold upon which those 3 months were added might have been lower. Holloway dissented, believing that the government had not shown harmless error and that there was “no concrete indication the district court would impose the same sentence on remand.” He adopted the Defendant’s “threshold” reasoning.