Admitting a parsimony problem
Thanks to this post at AL&P, I see an interesting admission by the government of sentencing error in the unpublished disposition in US v. Rosa, No. 06-2408 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2007) (available here). Here is the full text of the Rosa opinion:
Defendant-Appellant David Rosa appeals from the 10-month sentence of incarceration imposed on him following his third violation of supervised release. The Government concedes that remand is necessary because the District Court made statements inconsistent with the “parsimony clause” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — that is, the statutory mandate to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). We do not reach the question of whether a 10-month sentence for appellant’s violation is substantively reasonable.
I wonder what exactly the district court said.
UPDATE: A helpful reader sent me the problematic section of the transcript from the Rosa sentencing hearing. It can be downloaded below, and here’s one key sentence from the Judge describing the 10-month sentence being imposed: “It’s harsher than was anticipated by him or you, and maybe a little more than needed….”