Whether a sentencing court must provide a reasonable explanation, on the record, as to why it is not considering a sentencing factor advanced by a defendant during sentencing to comply with High Court precedents

QUESTION PRESENTED In Gall v. United States 536 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) and Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) this Court held that sentencing courts must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Furthermore, the judge “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentence.” Lower appellate courts have applied these opinions in different ways, but mostly ignoring the need to require from sentencing judges a sufficiently detailed sentencing explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit, for example, in this case, recognizes the correct standard of review, but faced with a record devoid of an explanation as to why Mr. Lépez-Rivera’s argument for a concurrent sentence based on his intellectual disability should be rejected, simply ignores the sentencing court’s omission. It chooses instead to justify the sentencing judge silence, by ruling that its recital of the sentencing factors, without much further explanation, is sufficient to satisfy Gall, supra. This action by the First Circuit Court of Appeals is contrary to the letter and spirt of Gall and requires that the Judgment issued by said court be vacated. The question is presented as follows: Whether a sentencing court must provide a reasonable explanation, on the record, as to why it is not considering a sentencing factor advanced by a defendant during sentencing to comply with High Court precedents. 1 STATEMENT OF