## Facts

- Brian Michael Gall joined a University of Iowa drug conspiracy distributing MDMA and participated for about seven months.
- While still in college, Gall told a co-conspirator he no longer wanted to participate and voluntarily withdrew.
- For more than three years before indictment, Gall maintained steady lawful employment, used no illegal drugs, and engaged in no drug sales.
- After the conspiracy was investigated, Gall returned to Iowa, surrendered to authorities, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
- The presentence report calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 30–37 months’ imprisonment (offense level 21; criminal history category I).
- The district court imposed 36 months’ probation, citing withdrawal, lack of recidivism, and post-offense rehabilitation.
- The court of appeals reversed as substantively unreasonable, applying an “extraordinary circumstances” requirement for large variances.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate courts must review all sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, including sentences outside the advisory Guidelines range.
2. Whether appellate courts may require “extraordinary circumstances” or apply rigid proportionality rules to justify a variance from the Guidelines range.
3. Whether Gall’s probationary sentence was substantively unreasonable given the magnitude of the variance from the Guidelines range.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the probationary sentence.
- Appellate courts must review all sentences—within, just outside, or far outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
- Appellate courts may not require “extraordinary circumstances” to justify an outside-Guidelines sentence or use a rigid mathematical approach tied to the degree of variance.
- The district court committed no significant procedural error and provided an adequate, individualized explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Considering the totality of the circumstances, the probationary sentence was substantively reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; the properly calculated Guidelines range is the “starting point and the initial benchmark,” not a mandatory constraint.
- Appellate review of sentencing is for abuse of discretion for all sentences, regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range.
- Reasonableness review has two steps: (1) procedural reasonableness (including correct calculation of the Guidelines range, treatment of the Guidelines as advisory, consideration of § 3553(a), reliance on accurate facts, and adequate explanation), and (2) substantive reasonableness based on the totality of the circumstances.
- The extent of a variance may be considered, but appellate courts may not impose categorical requirements (such as “extraordinary circumstances”) or formulas that function as heightened review for outside-Guidelines sentences.
- An appellate court may not reverse solely because it would have selected a different sentence; it must find an abuse of the district court’s sentencing discretion.

## Conclusion

The Court held that sentencing variances from the advisory Guidelines are reviewed under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard as within-Guidelines sentences, rejected heightened-justification rules for large variances, and upheld Gall’s probationary sentence as procedurally sound and substantively reasonable under § 3553(a).


Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007)