United States v. Ressam, 653 F.3d 963

Ressam was convicted on nine counts related to a plot to bomb LAX, with a 65-to-life advisory range and a 130-year statutory maximum.
A cooperation agreement in 2001 required truthful cooperation in exchange for potential sentence reductions; Ressam provided extensive cooperation for about two years.
Ressam ceased cooperating and recanted, leading to a 22-year sentence at trial."
The district court on remand again imposed 22 years, and the Government appealed as to the reasonableness of the sentence.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence for serious procedural flaws, ordered remand to a different judge, and noted the Government’s recantations and public-protection concerns.
The opinion discusses that procedural error must be considered even when there is a substantive-reasonableness challenge and emphasizes that the district court failed to keep Guideline considerations in mind during a large downward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court committed procedural error in sentencing Ressam	Government argues district court failed to address §3553(a) factors and to explain departure	Ressam contends procedural challenges were waived or immaterial	Yes; procedural errors present require remand for resentencing
Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable	Government asserts sentence 43 years below low end was unreasonable given terrorism crimes	Ressam argues cooperation and circumstances justify variance	No; substantial errors taint overall reasonableness and warrant remand to a different judge
Whether remand to a different judge is appropriate	Government argues no need for reassignment; judge’s approach acceptable	Ressam contends original judge’s views are entrenched and fairness requires reassignment	Yes; case remanded to a different judge for resentencing
Whether the Government's §5K1.1 cooperation arguments were adequately weighed	Government contends cooperation justified departure; district court failed to explain weighing	Ressam asserts cooperation evaluated appropriately	Procedural error found; weighing of cooperation inadequate

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural errors must be reviewed; abuse-of-discretion standard governs substantive review)
Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (requires that guidelines be starting point; significant procedural error if not cognizant of guidelines throughout)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (clarifies explanation standards for sentences outside guidelines)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion framework and procedural step to review sentences)
Overton v. United States, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizes review of procedural errors even when not expressly raised)
Wise v. United States, 515 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2008) (discusses appellate review standards for procedural errors)
Mohamed, United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2006) (used to compare reasoning for substantial downward variance)