United States v. Fender, 2:14-cr-00642

Defendant Travis Donald Fender pleaded guilty to one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) and one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a prohibited felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
Facts: Fender arranged a meeting under the guise of a drug deal, used a firearm to rob the victims, and the firearm discharged during the robbery, striking both victims.
Criminal history: prior state conviction for receiving stolen goods (2009), federal conviction for mail theft (2010), participation and termination from the federal BRIDGE program, multiple supervised-release violations and short terms of incarceration; offense occurred less than one year after release from federal prison.
Sentencing calculations: the court found the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to be 171–183 months; § 924(c) carries a 10-year mandatory minimum (120 months).
Government argued for a high-end Guidelines sentence; the court concluded a within-Guidelines sentence is appropriate but selected the low end—171 months—plus 3 years supervised release and $200 special assessment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a within-Guidelines sentence is appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)	Guidelines range justified; argued for high-end (183 months)	Argued for a lower sentence/variance (mitigation, rehabilitation)	Court applied § 3553(a) and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence at the low end (171 months)
Whether the seriousness of offense and defendant’s history warrant substantial imprisonment	Emphasized violent robbery, firearm discharge causing injury, and recidivism risk	Pointed to defendant’s youth, limited education, and treatment needs	Court found offense seriousness and history support a lengthy term to reflect punishment and promote respect for law
Whether deterrence and public protection require a higher-than-low-end sentence	Urged a higher sentence to deter defendant and others	Sought a lesser sentence as sufficient ; sought BOP treatment programs	Court held low-end sentence adequate for specific and general deterrence and public protection; recommended BOP screening for intensive drug treatment
Whether restitution or other alternatives were necessary	Government did not press restitution as necessary	Defendant did not demonstrate need for alternative sentence	Court declined restitution; primary focus is preventing further crimes; imposed incarceration and supervised release

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must calculate Guidelines, consider arguments, then apply § 3553(a); no presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors and explain sentencing decision; greater explanation required for variances)
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006) (outside-Guidelines sentences require more thorough explanation)
United States v. Politano, 552 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (general deterrence may justify sentence to deter the public at large)
United States v. Munoz, 974 F.2d 493 (4th Cir. 1992) (court may impose sentence to deter similar conduct by others)
United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015) (§ 3553(a)(6) analysis must account for differences in criminal history and offense conduct)
United States v. Shortt, 485 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2007) (a sentence greater than necessary to achieve § 3553(a)(2) purposes is unreasonable)