Important Ninth Circuit ruling on post-Booker sentencing

The Ninth Circuit today has issued a very important decision on post-Booker sentencing in US v. Zavala, No. 05-30120 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2006) (available here).  Here is how the per curiam decision begins:

Juan Antonio Zavala appeals the sentence that was imposed upon him after he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute or to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and of distribution of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.  His sole claim on appeal is that the district court violated Booker when it “presumed” that the advisory Sentencing Guideline calculation set forth the proper range for sentencing.  We vacate the sentence and remand.

And, within an opinion that is a great read, here is one of the many money paragraphs:

In this area, were a presumption proper, we suppose it would be a mandatory rebuttable presumption.  But even that is more than a mere starting point because it gives particular weight to the thing presumed.  It would indicate that the Guideline range is to be used unless (by some evidentiary standard) a party can prove the contrary.  That is much more than a mere consult for advice, and the Guidelines are to be no more than that.  See Booker, 543 U.S. at 264, 125 S. Ct. at 767.  If a district court presumed that the sentence should be a Guideline range sentence, it would thereby make it much more than something to be consulted and would give it much heavier weight than § 3553(a) now does.  That leaves it as a factor in the sentencing alchemy.

Needless to say, defendants and defense attorneys are likely to enjoy Zavala more than prosecutors.  Especially because the case has lots and lots of pro-discretion dicta, it will be especially interesting to see reactions to, and ripple effects of, this important opinion.  (E.g., I would not be surprised by en banc and/or cert petitions from the government in Zavala.)