United States v. Brandon Solomon
698 F. App'x 756
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Solomon pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to escape (18 U.S.C. § 751(a)) and possession with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- The district court sentenced Solomon to 36 months’ imprisonment.
- Solomon appeals, challenging procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- The court reviews sentence reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion, considering procedural and substantive aspects following Gall.
- The court imposed an upward variance citing offense seriousness, Solomon’s criminal history, and deterrence, and complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(C) by allowing argument before sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the variance | Solomon argues he lacked opportunity to address pre-variance issues | Court complied with Rule 32(i)(1)(C) and allowed argument before imposing the variance | No procedural error occurred; no harm shown. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the sentence | Solomon challenges the appropriateness of the 36-month term | Court adequately weighed offense seriousness, history, deterrence, and public safety | Sentence is substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review for reasonableness and procedural/substantive assessment)
- Carter v. United States, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (guidelines and §3553(a) considerations; requires explanation of variance)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (U.S. 2008) (no presumption of reasonableness for above-Guidelines sentences; requires consideration of factors)