Rita v. United States

551 U.S. 338 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Rita (D) made false statements under oath to a federal grand jury. D had bought a PPSH 41 machinegun parts kit. D agreed to let a federal agent inspect the kit. But D sent it back to the manufacturer and turned over a different kit. D was placed under oath and asked him about these matters. D denied that the Government agent had asked him for the PPSH kit, and also denied that he had spoken soon thereafter about the PPSH kit to someone at InterOrdnance. D was charged with perjury, making false statements, and obstructing justice, and, after a jury trial, obtained convictions on all counts. The PSR pointed out that the five counts of conviction all stem from a single incident thus treating them as if they amounted to the single most serious count among them (and ignoring all others). The single most serious was perjury. D was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. Because this conviction took place more than 10 years before the present offense, it did not count against D. D had no “criminal history points.” He was a category I, the lowest category for purposes of calculating a Guidelines’ sentence. D served in the Armed Forces for over 25 years, on active duty and in the Reserve. During that time, he received 35 commendations, awards, or medals of different kinds. The Guidelines indicated a sentence of 33-to-41 months’ imprisonment. D and P presented their sentencing arguments. D argued for sentence reduction based on D's involvement in criminal justice work, his military experience, and poor physical condition. P stated that D's perjury had interfered with the Government’s potential “obstruction of justice” claim against InterOrdnance and that D, as a former Government criminal justice employee, should have known better than to commit perjury. The court sentenced D to 33 months. D appealed and argued that the sentence was unreasonable as it did not adequately take account of “the defendant’s history and characteristics,” and (2) it “is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U. S. C. §3553(a)(2).” The Circuit stated that “a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.” It added that “while we believe that the appropriate circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the guideline range will depend on the facts of individual cases, we have no reason to doubt that most sentences will continue to fall within the applicable guideline range.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.