Sixth Circuit -- USA v. David Denny

USA v. David Denny 

Sentence far above guidelines sentencing range was a variance,  not a departure as "seriousness of offense" is considered under 3553(a), and the court said that it thought the guidelines sentence didn't reflect the seriousness of the offense.  (Distinction is important, as a warning would have to have been given if a departure was contemplated.)

The fact that the court checked "departure" twice in the sealed statement of reasons is not dispositive, as the oral sentencing controls, and there was insufficient ambiguity to look to extrinsic texts.

No procedural error when court describes sentence as "reasonable" instead of "sufficient, but not greater than necessary."

No substantive unreasonableness when court increases sentence based on effect on victim as opposed to applying vulnerable victim enhancement, as the latter considers susceptibility, not harm sustained.