## Facts

- Victor A. Rita was convicted in federal court of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice arising from testimony before a federal grand jury.
- The presentence report calculated an advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines range of 33–41 months.
- Rita requested a below-Guidelines sentence based on physical condition, likely vulnerability in prison, and military service.
- The district court stated it found no grounds to sentence outside the range and imposed 33 months (the bottom of the range).
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying a presumption that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable.
- Rita sought Supreme Court review, arguing the appellate presumption effectively restored mandatory Guidelines after Booker and that the district court’s explanation and consideration of § 3553(a) were inadequate.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within a properly calculated Federal Sentencing Guidelines range.
2. Whether applying that presumption is consistent with Booker, the Sixth Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3. What explanation a district court must provide to show consideration of § 3553(a) and the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit.
- A court of appeals may apply a rebuttable presumption that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
- The presumption is nonbinding, applies only on appellate review, and does not bind district courts or create a presumption that outside-Guidelines sentences are unreasonable.
- The district court’s explanation, though brief, was legally sufficient because the record showed it considered the arguments and had a reasoned basis for the sentence.
- Rita’s 33-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts may, but are not required to, apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range.
- The appellate presumption is limited to review; sentencing judges must independently apply § 3553(a) and may vary from the Guidelines based on case-specific reasons.
- The presumption does not violate the Sixth Amendment so long as the Guidelines remain advisory and the sentencing court retains discretion to impose a non-Guidelines sentence under § 3553(a).
- A sentencing judge need not give a lengthy explanation in every case; the judge must state enough to show consideration of the parties’ arguments and a reasoned basis for exercising sentencing authority.
- A within-Guidelines sentence may be upheld as reasonable when the record supports that the district court considered § 3553(a) and the defendant’s mitigation arguments.

## Conclusion

The Court held that courts of appeals may presume a within-Guidelines sentence reasonable on review, clarified that the presumption is rebuttable and does not constrain district courts, and approved a brief sentencing explanation where the record shows consideration of § 3553(a) and the parties’ arguments.


Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007)