Memorandum Opinion and Statement of Reasons

In 2005, the Supreme Court determined that the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and remedied this violation by excising the two provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act that made the Guidelines mandatory, thus rendering them advisory.  United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 232-36, 258-63 (2005).  In the wake of Booker, this court and many other district courts struggled to understand the bounds of their newfound sentencing discretion and attempted to strike a balance between the advice provided by the Guidelines and the policy instructions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  The courts of appeals had the difficult task of reviewing such sentences for “reasonableness,” relying on the same waypoints for navigation.  Id. at 264.  I originally sentenced Mr. Moreland to a term of 120 months in prison and a supervised release term of 96 months.  United States v. Moreland, 366 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D. W. Va. 2005) (Moreland I). The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, finding that term of imprisonment unreasonable and instructing this court to impose a sentence of not less than twenty years. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 437-38 (2006) (Moreland II).