United States v. Blue

• Decision Date: 12 December 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-4537,16-4537
• Citation: 877 F.3d 513
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Benjamin Cornelius BLUE, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

877 F.3d 513

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Benjamin Cornelius BLUE, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 16-4537

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: October 24, 2017

Decided: December 12, 2017

ARGUED: Wayne Dillard Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Floyd and Judge Harris joined.

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Cornelius Blue appeals his 272-month sentence, which the district court imposed after Blue pled guilty to armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Blue argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a downward departure from the sentencing range. We agree. For the reasons that follow, we vacate Blue's sentence and remand for resentencing.

I.

Blue pled guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) ("Count 1"), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) ("Count 2"). The probation officer prepared a presentence report ("PSR"), stating that Blue pointed a firearm at a bank teller and customer during the course of a bank robbery. Blue's co-defendant provided Blue with the firearm that Blue brandished during the robbery and drove the getaway vehicle. The PSR also designated Blue a career offender because of two predicate North Carolina convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon and federal armed bank robbery. Due to his status as a career offender, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines recommended a range of 188 to 235 months' imprisonment for Count 1. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2, ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2015) ("U.S.S.G.").

In addition, Blue faced a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 84 months' imprisonment on Count 2. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Thus, Blue's aggregate advisory Guidelines range was 272 to 319 months' imprisonment. J.A. 83; see U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1(c)(2)(A), 5G1.2(e).

At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSR as written. Blue requested that the court impose a sentence of 92 to 115 months' imprisonment on Count 1, to be followed by the mandatory 84-month consecutive sentence on Count 2. In support of his request, Blue raised several arguments: he was influenced by his older brothers, who pressured him to commit the previous robbery offenses; he committed the instant offense to support his opiate addiction; he had successfully found employment and was a hard worker; he was a good father to his child and his wife's children from a previous relationship; his co-defendant received a sentence of 63 months' imprisonment; the career offender Guidelines range was overly harsh and failed to deter offenders; he accepted responsibility for his conduct; and he attempted to provide substantial assistance in the prosecution of others, but his attempts were frustrated by factors outside of his control. The Government did not request a specific sentence but suggested that a low-end sentence would be appropriate.

The district court imposed a 188-month sentence for Count 1 and an 84-month sentence for Count 2 to run consecutively. In its statement of reasons, the sentencing court first stated that it had considered the Guidelines range for Blue's offenses. The court found that an aggregate 272-month imprisonment sentence, the low-end of Blue's Guidelines range, was "sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to meet the sentencing objectives of [§] 3553." J.A. 49. The court explained that it had

[C]onsidered arguments on behalf of [Blue] with respect to history and characteristics. The Court notes [Blue]'s substantial criminal history category and the seriousness of the offense. The Court notes [Blue], with respect to his history and characteristics as well, was influenced a great deal by an older sibling who had a history of engaging in similar criminal activity. The Court notes as well Defendant has experienced a substantial opiate addiction which has contributed to some of his conduct in this case.

J.A. 49.

Blue filed a timely notice of appeal. He challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence based on the district court's failure to address his non-frivolous arguments for a downward departure from the Guidelines range.

II.

We "review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Under this deferential standard, we first review for procedural reasonableness. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. If the district court's decision is procedurally sound, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Id. Reasonableness, however, "is not measured simply by whether the sentence falls within the statutory range, but by whether the sentence was guided by the Sentencing guidelines and by the provisions of § 3553(a)." United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir. 2006).

For a sentence to satisfy the procedural prong of our review, the district court must begin its sentencing proceeding "by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range .... [T]he Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark." Gall , 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586. "The court must thereafter give the parties the opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate and consider those arguments in light of all of the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." United States v. Hernandez , 603 F.3d 267, 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Gall , 552 U.S. at 49–50, 128 S.Ct. 586 ). The district court must then conduct an "individualized assessment" of the facts and arguments presented and impose an appropriate sentence. Gall , 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586. Finally, the court must "adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing." Id.

Blue contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence imposed in light of his nonfrivolous arguments for a downward departure.¹ "[W]e have held that for every sentence—whether above, below, or within the Guidelines range—a sentencing court must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it." United States v. Lynn , 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. Montes-Pineda , 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006) ("District courts are obligated to explain their sentences, whether those sentences are within or beyond the Guidelines range ...."). This individualized assessment requires that district courts consider the defendant's nonfrivolous arguments for a downward departure, impose an individualized sentence based on the characteristics of the defendant and the facts of the case, and explain the sentence chosen. Gall , 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586. Therefore, a perfunctory recitation of the defendant's arguments or the § 3553(a) factors "without application to the defendant being sentenced does not demonstrate reasoned decisionmaking or provide an adequate basis for appellate review." United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009).

The adequacy of the sentencing court's explanation depends on the complexity of each case. There is no mechanical approach to our sentencing review. "The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon the circumstances." Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). "The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-making authority." Id.

On one end of the spectrum, some cases require only a brief explanation of the sentencing judge's conclusions, such as when a judge "appl[ies] the Guidelines to a particular case" because the case is typical and "the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case." Rita , 551 U.S. at 356–57, 127 S.Ct. 2456. Blue's sentencing record does not state whether the district court found this case to be typical or squarely addressed by the Guidelines. The district court mentioned the Guidelines but it did not explain whether the Guidelines incorporate Blue's particular circumstances or the arguments he raised. Even if the court had actually found that the Guidelines squarely addressed Blue's individual characteristics, it failed to state so on the record.

On the other end of the spectrum, in cases where, as here, "the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence" the judge "will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments." Rita , 551 U.S. at 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456. "Sometimes the circumstances will call for a brief explanation; sometimes they will call for a lengthier explanation." Id. A sentencing court's explanation is sufficient if it, "although somewhat brief[ly], ‘outline[s] the defendant's particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel's arguments for a downward departure.’ " Lynn , 592 F.3d at 584 (quoting United States v. Johnson , 587 F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) ). However, " ‘where the district court could...