United States v. Blewitt, 920 F.3d 118

In May 2017, Seth Blewitt robbed a Bangor bank (no weapon displayed) and, the next day, robbed a discount store while armed with a sawed-off shotgun; his then-wife, Cara Blewitt, drove the getaway vehicle on both occasions.
Seth was indicted on three counts: bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §2113), Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951), and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §924(c)), pleaded guilty to all counts, and faced an 84‑month statutory mandatory consecutive term for the §924(c) count.
Cara was prosecuted separately by information on the two robbery counts (no §924(c) charge), pleaded guilty, received a minor-role adjustment recommendation, and was sentenced to 33 months (downward variance).
The district court expressed concern that the government’s charging choices produced a sentencing disparity and commented that such choices might reflect "typical gender roles."
For Seth, the district court calculated a guidelines range of 37–46 months on the grouped robbery counts, imposed a downwardly variant 24‑month sentence on those counts, and added the consecutive 84‑month §924(c) term for a total of 108 months; Seth appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Blewitt)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court committed a Dean error by refusing or appearing unable to consider the §924(c) mandatory consecutive term when sentencing on the predicate counts	Court suggested it "must impose an 84‑month sentence" and thus wrongly thought it could not consider that mandatory term when setting the underlying sentence	No Dean error; the court simply stated the mandatory nature of the §924(c) term but otherwise considered applicable law and sentencing factors	No Dean error; court did not misunderstand its authority and properly considered relevant factors when varying the underlying sentence
Whether the court impermissibly engaged in gender stereotyping or violated equal protection by considering gender in sentencing disparity between spouses	Court’s remarks about "typical gender roles" show it treated Seth more harshly because he was male	Defendants were not similarly situated: Seth had the §924(c) conviction and got no minor-role adjustment; court criticized government charging, used a downward variance to reduce disparity	No equal protection violation; no plain error. Court legitimately sought to reduce unwarranted disparity and did not impose or deny punishment based on sex

Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (sentencing courts may consider mandatory §924(c) terms when imposing sentences on predicate counts)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing decisions)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (guideline calculations and sentencing process principles)
United States v. Nuñez, 840 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities is a valid §3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Vallellanes-Rosa, 904 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2018) (explaining Dean error requires belief that court must ignore §924(c) mandatory minimum)
United States v. Maples, 501 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1974) (sex-based sentencing disparities are impermissible)