In U.S. v. Williams, No. 05-11594 (Jan. 13, 2006), the Court (Tjoflat, Black, Marcus), on a government appeal, held that a 90-month sentence was "reasonable" despite the fact that the advisory Guideline range was 188-235 months. The Court therefore affirmed the sentence.
The defendant was convicted of possessing five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because of two prior felony convictions, he was subject to a 188-235 month sentence under the career offender provision of the Guidelines. At sentencing the district court stated that such a lengthy sentence would not promote respect for the law or be proportional to the seriousness of the offense. The court stated that it could not "in good conscience" sentence the defendant to such a lengthy term.
Reviewing the sentence, post-Booker, for reasonableness, the Court noted that the district court had correctly calculated the Guideline range. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the district court had merely "incanted" the Guidelines while ignoring them, the Court pointed out that the district court had repeatedly stated that a 188 month sentence was unreasonable for a transaction involving $350 worth of drugs, and concluded that a 90-month sentence was "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to punish Williams, in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court said that "normally" the policies of § 3553(a) are "encapsulated" in the Guidelines, but found that a mechanistic application of the Guidelines would not promote respect for the law in this case. The Court concluded that the district court gave "valid" reasons for its sentence, having correctly calculated the Guideline range. The Court found the sentence "reasonable" and affirmed the sentence.
