## Facts

- Lawrence W. Nelson was convicted in federal court of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- The district court calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a 360-month term, the bottom of that range.
- At sentencing, the judge stated the Guidelines were “presumptively reasonable” and that, absent a “good reason” under the statutory factors, the Guidelines sentence was the “reasonable” sentence.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the argument that the district court improperly treated the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable.
- The Supreme Court previously granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of *Rita v. United States*.
- On remand, the Fourth Circuit again affirmed without further briefing, concluding the district court understood the Guidelines were advisory.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari again to review whether the sentencing judge applied an impermissible presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court commits legal error by treating the Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable when imposing sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (per curiam) vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
- The Court held that a sentencing court may not apply a presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range.
- The sentencing judge’s statements showed the court believed the Guidelines were presumptively reasonable, which was inconsistent with governing sentencing law.

## Legal Principles

- Courts of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness when reviewing a within-Guidelines sentence, but district courts may not apply such a presumption when selecting the sentence.
- A district court must (1) correctly calculate the Guidelines range and then (2) determine an appropriate sentence for the individual defendant by considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, without requiring a special justification to vary from the Guidelines.
- Treating the Guidelines as the default “reasonable” sentence unless a “good reason” exists to depart is legal error because it gives the advisory Guidelines improper controlling weight.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that sentencing judges must not presume the Guidelines sentence is reasonable; they must independently apply § 3553(a) after calculating the advisory range, and Nelson’s sentence was vacated for resentencing because the district court applied an impermissible presumption.


Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350 (2009)