Sixth Circuit reverses guidelines sentence for inadequate explanation

I am about to head off to a panel National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in Salt Lake City that has  six great district judges providing a sentencing “view from the bench.”  They might be interested to learn of a decision today from the Sixth Circuit, US v. Johnson, No. 05-4277 (6th Cir. May 25, 2007) (available here), which reverses a within-guidelines sentence for inadequate explanation.  Here’s the key concluding paragraph:

We have examined carefully the transcript of the sentencing proceedings and the other documents submitted and are unable to find any discussion of the reasons for which the district court chose the sentence it settled upon. The district court determined that the appropriate advisory sentencing guideline range was 262 to 327 months, announced a “tentative sentence” at the bottom of the range, gave the parties an opportunity to object and comment, and when no objections were forthcoming, advised the defendant of his appellate rights. We have little doubt that the experienced and learned trial judge was aware that the sentencing guidelines were advisory and that the factors enumerated in section 3553(a) were to guide her discretion; but we are unable to point to anything in the record to confirm our surmise. Therefore, we must vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.