United States v. Benjamin Blue, 877 F.3d 513

Defendant Benjamin Cornelius Blue pled guilty to armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d)) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
Presentence Report designated Blue as a career offender based on prior North Carolina robbery-with-weapon and federal armed bank robbery convictions, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 188–235 months on Count 1 and an 84-month mandatory consecutive term on Count 2 (aggregate 272–319 months).
Blue urged a substantially lower sentence (92–115 months on Count 1) and raised several mitigating arguments: influence of older brothers, opioid addiction, employment history, family responsibilities, acceptance of responsibility, attempted cooperation, and disparity with co-defendant’s 63-month sentence.
The district court adopted the PSR and imposed the low-end Guidelines sentence: 188 months (Count 1) + 84 months consecutive (Count 2) = 272 months, stating it had considered the Guidelines, § 3553(a) factors, and some of Blue’s history/characteristics.
On appeal Blue argued procedural unreasonableness because the district court failed to address multiple nonfrivolous arguments for a downward departure; the Government conceded those arguments were nonfrivolous at oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentence	Blue: district court failed to address several nonfrivolous arguments for downward departure and did not provide an individualized explanation	Government: sentence within Guidelines is presumptively reasonable; court afforded Blue opportunity to be heard and made brief findings referencing some factors	Vacated and remanded — sentence procedurally unreasonable because court did not adequately address or explain rejection of Blue’s nonfrivolous mitigating arguments

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standard; need individualized assessment and explanation)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (range of adequate explanations; when Guidelines may be sufficient)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir.) (within-Guidelines sentence vacated where court failed to explain rejection of nonfrivolous arguments)
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir.) (context may sometimes make court’s reasoning apparent)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir.) (court cannot leave only perfunctory recitation of arguments; must provide sufficient explanation)