Background
The defendant pleaded guilty to eleven Hobbs Act robberies and six carjackings, along with one count of discharging a firearm. He received a 207-month sentence. Later, a Supreme Court decision vacated the firearm conviction because the underlying attempted robbery was not a crime of violence. At resentencing, the district court reimposed the original 207-month sentence, and the defendant appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sentence for plain error regarding procedural reasonableness and for abuse of discretion regarding substantive reasonableness. It found no error because the district court adequately explained the upward variance by considering the sheer number of offenses and the violence involved, which were not fully captured by the Guidelines. The court also found the district court did not ignore mitigating factors but rather found them unpersuasive in light of the serious nature of the crimes.
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that sentencing courts may consider the full scope of a defendant’s conduct, including counts dismissed or vacated, when justifying an upward variance from the Guidelines range.