Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-Guideline, 18-month term of incarceration on money laundering charges. While defendant argued that his sentence was unreasonable, because Dist. Ct. failed to consider certain mitigating factors and improperly relied on need for general deterrence and need to avoid sentence disparities, Dist. Ct. could properly support imposition of instant sentence based on finding that money laundering of $100,000 in drug proceeds is serious offense that warrants prison sentence, where instant sentence had effect of deterring others from committing similar offenses, sanctioning defendant for his conduct, and promoting respect for law. Fact that defendant paid restitution amount prior to sentence did not require t6hat Dist. Ct. impose non-custodial sentence as requested by defendant. Ct. also observed that there is nearly irrebutable presumption that below-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing