U.S. v. Boatman

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 76-month, below-Guidelines, term of incarceration on bank robbery charge, even though defendant maintained that Dist. Ct. had failed to seriously consider his argument that more appropriate sentence of time served (i.e., 24 months) with community-based drug treatment was more appropriate sentence. While Dist. Ct. did not review on record extensive evidence regarding drug-treatment programs submitted by defendant in support of his sentence recommendation, Dist. Ct. provided sufficient explanation for rationale of instant sentence, where Dist. Ct. indicated that he had considered “significant focus” of defendant’s evidence submissions, which led to decision to impose below-Guidelines sentence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was entitled to find that need for retribution and to incapacitate defendant required longer term of incarceration than what defendant had recommended.