Background
Jabari Stots appealed his ninety-six-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, followed by three years of supervised release. He argued that the district court procedurally erred by applying an inapplicable Sentencing Guideline note and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court considered conduct already incorporated into the guideline calculation.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard from United States v. Keene, assuming a guidelines error but finding the sentence substantively reasonable under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The district court had stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the guidelines. The court found the sentence reasonable because the district court engaged in a lengthy discussion of Stots’s offense conduct, including a high-speed chase and a shootout, and properly weighed the need for punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that district courts may impose upward variances based on conduct already considered in the guideline range if the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.