More from 7th Circuit on reasonableness review

A break between talks at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and a borrowed computer allow me to report on the latest Seventh Circuit decision confirming the reality that few (if any?) properly-calculated guideline sentences are going to be found unreasonable after Booker.  In US v. Williams, No. 03-4091 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (accessible here), the Seventh Circuit affirms a nearly 10-year sentence at the top of the applicable range for a felon-in-possession conviction and explains (with cites omitted):

Deciding whether or not the sentence imposed by thedistrict court is reasonable entails deferential review.   The question is not how weourselves would have resolved the factors identified asrelevant by section 3553(a) — many of which are vagueand, worse perhaps, hopelessly open-ended — nor what sentence we ourselves ultimately mighthave decided to impose on the defendant.  We arenot sentencing judges.  Rather, what we must decide iswhether the district judge imposed the sentence he or shedid for reasons that are logical and consistent with thefactors set forth in section 3553(a). As we have noted, asentence imposed within a properly calculated Guidelinesrange is presumptively reasonable.  We have left room for the possibility that therewill be some cases in which a sentence within the Guidelinesrange, measured against the factors identified insection 3553(a), stands out as unreasonable. But thosecases … will be rare.