United States v. Ahmed Ressam

Opinion by Judge ALARCÓN; Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.

ORDER

This Court’s opinion, filed February 2, 2010 [ 593 F.3d 1095 ], is amended as follows:

1. The three paragraphs on slip Opinion page 1882, line 20 to page 1883, line 13 [ 593 F.3d at 1098-99 ] that read:

are deleted and replaced by the following three paragraphs:

2. On slip Opinion page 1902, line 28-30 [ 593 F.3d at 1109 ], please replace:

3. The five paragraphs on slip Opinion pages 1912-1916 [ 593 F.3d at 1114-16 ] that read:

A

In Gall, the Supreme Court instructed that

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (emphasis added).

are deleted and replaced by the following eight paragraphs:

*802 The Government also argues that:

(Id. at 38.)

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 .

4. On slip Opinion page 1929, line 15 [ 593 F.3d at 1122 ], please replace:

There are four procedural errors in the district court’s analysis: with:

5. On slip Opinion page 1948, line 30 [ 593 F.3d at 1133 ], please replace:

Paul, 561 F.3d at 975 .

with:

6. On slip Opinion page 1949, beginning at line 5 [593 F.3d at 1133-34], please replace:

with:

ORDER

My dissenting opinion, which commences at slip op. 1877, 1949 [ 593 F.3d *805…

dissenting:

We are required to give due deference to a district court’s sentencing decisions. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). That does not mean a grudging deference; it means that even if we would prefer a different sentence, we may not reverse. Id. In fact, “[e]ven if we are certain that we would have imposed a different sentence had we worn the district judge’s robe, we can’t reverse on that basis.” United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir.2008). As I see it, that requires us to approach our review of a substantive reasonableness 1 issue with a great deal of humility. It is not always easy to avoid consulting oneself about what one would do if one were the sentencing judge. A case like this is especially tempting in that regard, and I fear that the majority has *842 not resisted the temptation into which it has been led.

The record here makes it apparent that the district court, which lived with this case for many years, considered the materials placed before it and touched all of the procedural bases. 2 The court calculated the guideline range, 3 and no one says that it did so improperly. It also considered that range. It…

Volume 1 of

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 09-30000 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v.  2:99-cr-00666-

AHMED RESSAM, JCC-

Defendant-Appellee.  OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 2, 2009—Seattle, Washington

Filed February 2, 2010

Before: Arthur L. Alarcón, Ferdinand F. Fernandez and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Alarcón COUNSEL

Mark N. Bartlett, Helen J. Brunner (argued), Assistant United States Attorneys, Seattle, Washington, for the plaintiff- appellant.

Thomas W. Hillier, II (argued), Lissa W. Shook, Federal Pub- lic Defender, Seattle, Washington, for the defendant-appellee.

OPINION

ALARCÓN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Ahmed Ressam was convicted by a jury on nine counts of criminal activity in connection with his plot to carry out an attack against the United States by detonating explosives at 1882 UNITED STATES v. RESSAM…