Anthony Frank Scovotto v. United States

When the government appeals from criminal sentencing, the courts of appeals review both whether the sentencing court gave adequate, recordbased reasons and whether those reasons were substantively reasonable. When a criminal defendant appeals in the Ninth Circuit, that court reviews only the former procedural-reasonableness question. Even when the criminal defendant separately raises substantive reasonableness, the Ninth Circuit commonly resolves that challenge on procedural rather than substantive considerations. It thus denies defendants that second-step inquiry into the substance of their sentences, as it did with Mr. Scovotto here. The question presented is: Whether, like the government when it is appellant, criminal defendant-appellants are entitled to resentencing when a district court’s reasons for the sentence are substantively unreasonable?