United States v. Pennington, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1969

Pennington owned Traveling Treasures, a Springfield, Illinois store, where agents learned of illegal firearms activity and a child handling a gun; confidential informants arranged controlled firearm and drug purchases; Pennington admitted carrying firearms at the store and showed officers multiple guns at home; Pennington was indicted on selling a firearm to a felon (Count 1), distributing ecstasy (Count 2), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (Count 3); he pleaded guilty without a plea agreement; the PSR set a guidelines range of 8–14 months for Counts 1–2 and a 60-month statutory minimum for Count 3, yielding 68–74 months total; the district court calculated the range, heard arguments, and sentenced Pennington to 68 months; the defense sought a 64-month sentence with a one-count-down, arguing factors including mental health, responsibility, and limited criminal history; the judge granted self-surrender and imposed the 68-month sentence; Pennington challenged the procedure on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sentence procedurally sound under §3553(a) and related standards?	Pennington argues the judge inadequately considered §3553(a) factors and the defense's below-guidelines request.	Pennington contends the court properly weighed factors and the defense’s arguments.	Yes with remand; the court gave inadequate explanation and relied on improper presumptions about guidelines.
Did the judge adequately explain why 68 months, not 64, was chosen?	Pennington's 64-month proposal merited detailed consideration.	The judge would not engage in a four-month difference; guidelines are a general guide.	Vacate; remand for resentencing to permit a reasoned justification for the sentence.
Did the court treat the guidelines as mandatory or presumptively reasonable?	The judge appeared to treat guidelines as binding or presumptively reasonable.	Guidelines are not binding but are indicators; the judge’s remarks were ambiguous.	Remand to clarify the reasoning and ensure proper application of §3553(a).

United States v. Abebe, 651 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2011) (sentencing procedures; preserved standard of review)
United States v. Campos, 541 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008) (requires meaningful consideration of §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (repetition of discussion not required; meaningful consideration suffices)
United States v. Tyra, 454 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2006) (no magic words; need a reasoned basis for discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (within-Guidelines benchmark; not binding)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (court may not treat Guidelines as presumptive; must justify departure or adherence)
United States v. Johnson, 635 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2011) (reveals need for non-arbitrary basis when upholding guideline sentence)
United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2010) (ambiguous guideline impact; regular remand when sentence influenced by parsimony concerns)
United States v. Sachsenmaier, 491 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2007) (thumb on the scale toward guideline sentence invalid without adequate reasoning)
United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court must exercise discretion and explain ruling on discretionary decisions)
United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1996) (sentencing package and total years assessment)
Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (U.S. 2001) (noting that any jail time can carry prejudice; parsimony principle)