>>10649681 (lb)
>>10649732 (lb)
#Poopalosi needs to trend!
United States v. Dane Schrank - Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of 97 to 120 months in prison. Yet the district court imposed a noncustodial sentence of just 12 months’ home confinement. The government appealed, and we vacated the sentence because it was substantively unreasonable. It both “ignored or minimized the severity of the offense” and “failed to account for general deterrence.” Schrank, 768 F. App’x at 515.
Yet on remand, the district court imposed the same sentence. The district judge criticized our court for “second-guess[ing]” her sentence and said that she refused to impose a sentence that “does not make sense.” R. 47, Page ID 249, 271. But the district judge didn’t stop there. She also found time to criticize the “sophistication of the judges on the Sixth Circuit when it comes to computers” and said that Schrank’s misconduct—accessing the dark web over the course of five days and downloading nearly 1,000 images of children being raped—was “much
less exaggerated” than “the Sixth Circuit judges realize.” Id. at 250. She concluded by noting, “maybe the Sixth Circuit will reverse me again.” Id. at 271.
We now do just that. Because Schrank’s sentence remains substantively unreasonable, we vacate it and remand for resentencing. And given the district judge’s conduct, we order that the case be reassigned on remand.
… On remand, we order this case be reassigned to another district court judge for
resentencing. This court has a duty to supervise district courts to ensure “proper judicial administration in the federal system.” La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 259–60 (1957). Although the government did not request reassignment, appellate courts may sua sponte order reassignment on remand. Robinson, 778 F.3d at 524 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2106).
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0306p-06.pdf
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1305631977035509762