Failure to address sentence request was reversible error

Where the defendant who pleaded to possession of a firearm by a felon argued for a variance sentence based upon his military service and the fact that he had secured a job upon his release, the trial court erred by not addressing these facts in any way.

Background

Bradley Charles Roberson appeals from his 84-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Roberson asserts that the district court failed to adequately consider his arguments for a variance sentence.

Analysis

Roberson briefly requested a variance based upon his military service and the fact that he had secured a job upon his release. The district court did not address the facts raised by Roberson in any way. Admittedly, Roberson’s arguments were not nuanced, lengthy or complex. However, while the court engaged with counsel and Roberson concerning the facts and circumstances of the underlying crime and Roberson’s other recent criminal behavior, the court did not provide any reasoning whatsoever for choosing the sentence it did.

Importantly, the court’s colloquy with Roberson and counsel did not touch upon Roberson’s military background, his ability to legally make a living upon release or even the appropriateness of a downward variance. Although the government seeks to draw inferences regarding the court’s intent, this court’s assessment of the record cannot replace the district court’s obligation to explain its rationale. The court’s statements, even viewed in context, do not make “patently obvious” that the court “truly considered [Roberson’s] nonfrivolous arguments.” The court’s failure to provide reasoning constituted procedural error.

To avoid reversal, the government must demonstrate that this procedural error was harmless, which requires “pro[of] that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result.” In other words, the government must show that Roberson did not receive a longer sentence because of the district court’s failure to consider his nonfrivolous arguments.

Here, the government contends that Roberson’s arguments were weak and did not support a downward variance in light of Roberson’s continued criminal conduct despite prior leniency. However, the district court did not actually comment on or draw conclusions about any prior leniency, much less whether any prior leniency weighed against a downward variance.

Even assuming Roberson’s arguments were weak, the district court made no statement as to whether it considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors or adopted the government’s arguments regarding prior leniency and Roberson’s failure to change his behavior. Thus, we find that the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the district court’s error was harmless.

Vacated and remanded.

United States v. Roberson, Appeal No. 19-4939, Sept. 25, 2020. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDNC at Greenville (Boyle). Geoffrey W. Hosford for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon Jr. and Jennifer P. May-Parker for Appellee. VLW 020-2-261. 5 pp.