United States v. Colin Hawkins, 695 F. App'x 720

Colin Hawkins was convicted by a jury of mailing a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 and sentenced to 48 months after representing himself at trial.
The district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 15–21 months to impose the 48-month sentence.
At sentencing Hawkins argued two principal challenges: that two prior Maryland convictions should not count in his criminal history because he lacked counsel at those proceedings, and that the 48‑month upward variance was substantively unreasonable.
Hawkins presented no documentary evidence or testimony at sentencing to prove the prior convictions were constitutionally invalid for lack of counsel.
The district court explained the upward variance by citing Hawkins’ lack of acceptance of responsibility (claiming intoxication without evidence), lack of remorse, the systemic impact of death threats, and the need to protect the public given Hawkins’ repeated unlawful conduct.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding Hawkins failed to meet the heavy burden to invalidate prior convictions and that the upward variance was substantively reasonable.

Issue	Hawkins' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether prior Maryland convictions must be excluded from criminal history because Hawkins lacked counsel	Hawkins: prior convictions invalid for lack of counsel and thus should not count	Gov: Hawkins bears heavy burden to prove invalidity; presumption that state court followed rules and that any lack of counsel was a knowing waiver	Court: Rejected Hawkins; he failed to overcome presumption of regularity and produced no evidence of invalid convictions
Whether the 48‑month upward variance was substantively unreasonable	Hawkins: variance inconsistent with Guidelines reduction for single, minimally deliberated act	Gov: District court reasonably relied on § 3553(a) factors (no remorse, false intoxication claim, safety/public protection, systemic harm of threats)	Court: Affirmed; variance supported by multiple, adequate reasons and not substantively unreasonable

Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (challenge to prior convictions for lack of counsel is permitted but burdeny)
Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (presumption of regularity for final judgments; defendant bears burden to show irregularity)
United States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105 (defendant’s vague testimony insufficient to show prior conviction invalid)
United States v. Hondo, 366 F.3d 363 (discussing difficulty of Custis challenges)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (review of substantive reasonableness considers totality of circumstances and extent of variance)
United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (larger departures require more significant justification)
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669 (district courts have broad discretion weighing § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (affirming substantial upward variance when supported by reasons)
United States v. Angle, 598 F.3d 352 (reasonableness focuses on the package of reasons given by the court)