How have the courts interpreted sentencing guidelines in sentencing decisions?

The defendants' next argument that their cases should nevertheless be remanded for re-sentencing because the district court failed to adequately state its reasons in open court for imposing its sentences, as required by 18 U.S.C. 3553(c), is unavailing. The district court explicitly referenced the applicable sentencing guidelines in imposing its sentences. The court discussed the defendants' base offense levels, their criminal histories, and the recommended guideline ranges, before imposing its sentences, putting both defendants on notice of how the court numerically arrived at their particular sentences. In this way, this case can be distinguished from United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1996) and United States v. Vallejo, 69 F.3d 992, 994-95 (9th Cir.1995), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1447 (1996).

The defendants nonetheless complain that the district court erred in failing to state its reasons for denying application of the "safety valve" provision. However, the district court denied application of the "safety valve" provision only after allowing extensive briefing and oral argument on the matter. The parties had stipulated that the first four requirements for the "safety valve" provision had been met. Thus, the only issue in dispute was whether the defendants had satisfied the fifth requirement which requires complete and truthful disclosure by a defendant of all information he or she has concerning the charged offenses. 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5). In denying "safety valve" protection in these cases, the district court had to have found that the defendants did not truthfully provide the government with all the information they had concerning their charged offenses. See United States v. Snyder, 913 F.2d 300, 304 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that although the district court failed to explicitly state in open court the reasons for its imposition of sentence, it was apparent from the facts that the sentencing judge flatly rejected appellant's arguments); United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629, 633 (8th Cir.1991) (finding that although the district court made no express findings, it is implicit in the sentence actually imposed that the district court rejected appellant's arguments and resolved the disputed issues against him). Significantly, neither defendant, at the time of sentencing, felt the need to request a an explanatory statement that they had not been forthcoming in their disclosures.