Ninth Circuit stresses need for sentence explanation

On Monday in US v. Carty, No. 05-10200 (9th Cir. July 17, 2006) (available here), the Ninth Circuit reviewed its approach to reasonablenes review and reversed a within-guideline sentence because the district court failed to address the 3553(a) factors that control sentencing after Booker.  Here is the Carty court’s concluding paragraph:

Although several circuits have afforded a presumptionof reasonableness to within-the-Guidelines sentences, [cites], we have not adopted this position.  We offer noopinion whether the district court’s within-the-Guideline sentencehere was, in fact, reasonable.  We hold only that post-Booker, when imposing a sentence, a district court must provideon the record some articulation of its consideration of the§ 3553(a) factors and explanation of the reasons underlyingits sentence selection.  Because the district court did not createsuch a record, we remand for resentencing.