United States v. Elton Gary
701 F. App'x 234
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Elton Gary pleaded guilty to multiple offenses: three dog-fighting counts, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and two marijuana-related counts; his wife and son were co-defendants who pleaded guilty to fewer charges.
- Gary’s Guidelines range was 57–71 months; the district court granted a one-month upward departure (to 72 months) for extreme cruelty and inadequate criminal-history assessment.
- Gary’s wife received probation with 120 days incarceration (Guidelines 27–33 months); his son received six months (Guidelines 0–6 months).
- At sentencing the court cited Gary’s two decades leading the dog-fighting operation, his more extensive criminal history, and the need for deterrence.
- Gary appealed, arguing the sentence created an unwarranted disparity with his wife and son and that the district court failed to adequately explain its sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: Did the district court adequately consider § 3553(a) factors and explain the sentence? | Gary: Court failed to explicitly identify § 3553(a) factors and inadequately explained disparate sentences. | Government: Court’s statements and statement of reasons show consideration of § 3553(a) factors and individualized assessment. | Affirmed — court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) and provided an individualized explanation. |
| Substantive reasonableness: Was Gary’s 72-month sentence substantively unreasonable due to unwarranted disparity with co-defendants? | Gary: Upward departure created an unjustified disparity compared to wife and son. | Government: Congress intended national, not intra-case, uniformity; co-defendants differed in conduct and records; deterrence and leadership justified departure. | Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable given Gary’s leadership, criminal history, and deterrence needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets procedural and substantive reasonableness standard and § 3553(a) explanation requirements)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must make individualized assessment; explanation need not be lengthy)
- United States v. Parker, 462 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2006) (§ 3553(a)(6) aims at national, not intra-case, sentencing uniformity)