U.S v. Maday

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 30-year term of incarceration on certain bank robbery charges that was to be served consecutively to 30-year state court sentence on other charges, where Dist. Ct. only discussed one sentencing factor under section 3553(a) and did not explain why he sentenced defendant to instant long-term sentence when it also observed that defendant would probably not pose danger to community by time he fully served said sentence. Ct. also noted that defendant had raised certain mitigation arguments that were not adequately explained in Dist. Ct.’s rationale for imposing instant sentence.