United States v. Brandon Cardez
682 F. App'x 249
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Brandon Cardez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(g)(1), 924.
- The district court imposed a 28-month sentence after an upward departure from the Guidelines under USSG § 4A1.3 (policy statement).
- The court found Cardez’s criminal history category under‑represented the seriousness of his prior offenses, noting consolidated judgments and a pattern of offenses committed mostly as a juvenile.
- The district court also found a likelihood of recidivism and rejected less severe sentences (e.g., supervision with outpatient drug treatment).
- Cardez appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the upward departure and arguing the sentence was substantively and/or procedurally unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward departure under USSG § 4A1.3 was procedurally reasonable | Cardez argued the departure was unreasonable and the court failed to properly justify it | Government and district court maintained reliable information showed under‑representation of criminal history and risk of future crimes | Affirmed: no procedural error; court considered relevant factors and explained rejection of leniency |
| Whether the extent of the upward departure was substantively reasonable | Cardez contended the 28‑month sentence was substantively excessive given juvenile origin of many offenses | Court relied on totality of circumstances, including consolidated convictions and recidivism risk, to justify sentence length | Affirmed: substantive reasonableness upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard and procedural/substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (review standard for departures: judge’s decision and extent of divergence evaluated for reasonableness)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must address nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence and explain rejections)