Notable sentencing opinion discussing the “state of appellate review of district court sentencing”
A kind reader made sure I did not miss a notable recent federal opinion authored by US District Judge Joseph Goodwin US v. Shields, No. 2:21-cr-00268 (SD WVa April 24, 2025) (available for download below). The 13-page opinion is a must-read in full, and this paragraph from the first part of the opinion suggests the value of broad readership:
Today, I resentenced Mr. Shields pursuant to the Fourth Circuit’s mandate. I now write in conjunction with that resentencing to consider the state of appellate review of district court sentencing. It is the duty of the district court to follow appellate court orders in sure fashion and explain their actions and reactions. The public greatly benefits from courts acting in such a manner, clearly communicating what the law is and how it is applied.
I am disinclined to try to summarize what follows, but these paragraphs (with lots of meaty footnotes removed) provide a flavor of the opinion’s themes:
Fast forward twenty years, and Justice Scalia’s fears of “havoc on federal district and appellate courts” have come to pass.6 Booker, 543 U.S. at 312–13. District courts, exercising the autonomy restored in Booker, remain subject to the appellate review Booker also promised. Carissa Byrne Hessick & F. Andrew Hessick, Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions, 60 Ala. L. Rev. 1, 28–36 (2008) (suggesting that Gall, Rita, and Kimbrough put the district and appellate courts on a collision course beyond the ordinary understanding of appellate review). That appellate review has created its own “Appellate Guidelines” — interpreting the advisory Guidelines and binding on sentencing judges.
In the search for “reasonable” sentences, the appellate courts have also undermined Congress’s intent to standardize sentencing practices. To some, the “courts of appeals have vociferously fought” Booker. Alison Siegler, Rebellion: The Courts of Appeals’ Latest Anti-Booker Backlash, 82. U. Chi. L. Rev. 201, 202 (2015). Sometimes that has taken the form of an “inconsistent . . . development of procedural review” and an “even less clearly defined” standard of substantive reasonableness. Morgan Yates, Note, Truth or Unintended Consequences: Reining in Appellate Court Action in the Absence of a Government Appeal, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1705, 1710 (2015).
Other times the appellate courts seek out procedural snags “when they wish to reverse sentences based on substance, warping the procedural inquiry.” Note, More Than a Formality: The Case for Meaningful Substantive Reasonableness Review, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 951, 961 (2014). Still, some do not place blame entirely on the circuit courts who must “apply all of these contradictory sentencing goals in every case.” Craig D. Rust, Note, When “Reasonableness” is not so Reasonable: The Need to Restore Clarity to the Appellate Review of Federal Sentencing Decisions After Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough, 26 Touro L. Rev. 75, 102 (2010).
Without a doubt, Justice Scalia’s fears came true. The appellate courts — in an effort to enforce Supreme Court sentencing jurisprudence — have developed their own requirements, differently, across the country.