United States v. Arthur Payton, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10905

Arthur Payton, a repeat bank robber who recruited accomplices (often vulnerable women) to perform robberies while he provided planning, tools, and transport, was convicted for a series of bank robberies in Michigan.
Prior convictions: six-count robbery conviction (sentenced to 10 years), later admitted to seven more robberies (10 years), then released and convicted again for four additional robberies at age 45; he was convicted and proceeded to sentencing at age 46.
The presentence report recommended a Guidelines range of 210–262 months (17.5–22 years); the government requested at least 300 months (25 years); defense sought a within-Guidelines sentence.
The district court sentenced Payton to 540 months (45 years), labeling it the minimum reasonable sentence; defense objected to the variance, government did not.
Payton appealed, arguing the above-Guidelines 45-year sentence was substantively unreasonable, particularly given his age and declining recidivism risk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 45‑year sentence that more than doubles the Guidelines range is reasonable	Payton argued his advanced age reduces recidivism risk and the additional 20+ years beyond Guidelines is greater than necessary	Government argued Payton’s history of brazen, repeated offenses justifies a much longer sentence to protect public safety	Vacated: district court failed to adequately explain why Payton’s age did not reduce the need for such a large variance; remanded for further proceedings
Whether district court provided sufficient § 3553(a) explanation for a major variance	Payton urged the court to address empirical evidence that recidivism declines with age and his individual likelihood of reoffending	Government emphasized recidivism risk based on Payton’s repeated, organized bank‑robbery scheme	Held: Court’s brief statements were insufficient; a substantial upward variance requires a more detailed, individualized justification

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must explain significant departures from the Guidelines)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentencing judge must articulate reasons for non‑Guidelines sentences to permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; appellate review of reasonableness remains)
United States v. Camacho‑Arellano, 614 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2010) (appellate standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
United States v. Robinson, 669 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2012) (greater variance demands more compelling justification)
United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. 2007) (vacatur where district court failed to address defendant’s sentencing arguments)
United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (age can be relevant in sentencing)
United States v. Davis, 537 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2008) (recognizing old age as a mitigating sentencing factor)