United States v. Ferguson, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14135

Background

In April 2015, 17‑year‑old Grover Ferguson carjacked a woman, shot her three times at point‑blank range (including to the face), causing permanent loss of sight in one eye, chronic pain, and psychological trauma.
Ferguson pled guilty to vehicular robbery by force (18 U.S.C. § 2119(2)) and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)).
Guideline calculations produced a combined range of 198–217 months (including a mandatory consecutive 120 months on the § 924(c) count); the government requested 240 months; defense sought 180 months.
The district court imposed a 600‑month (50‑year) sentence (8 years for carjacking, 42 years consecutive for the firearm count) — over 31 years above the guideline high end.
The district court initially failed to announce supervised‑release conditions at sentencing and entered an amended judgment adding those conditions months later; the appeal was filed after the oral sentence but before the amended judgment.

Issues

Issue	Government's Argument	Ferguson's Argument	Held
Adequacy of explanation for a major variance from the Guidelines	The crime’s extreme violence justified an above‑guideline (but substantially less than 50 years) sentence to protect the public and deter similar conduct.	The sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for a variance of more than 31 years above the guideline range.	Vacated and remanded: such a dramatic variance requires a more substantial, specific justification to permit meaningful appellate review.
Timing and omission of supervised‑release conditions	Court could later supply conditions; sentencing was otherwise final for jurisdictional purposes.	District court erred by not imposing supervised‑release conditions at sentencing or in the original written judgment.	The court erred in delaying imposition of supervised‑release conditions; conditions are part of the sentence and should be announced at sentencing (but remand was ordered on broader grounds).
Appellate jurisdiction despite amended judgment filed after notice of appeal	The original judgment that ordered imprisonment was a final judgment for appeal purposes.	Not argued to deprive appellate jurisdiction.	Appellate jurisdiction is not defeated by the later amended judgment; the original imprisonment judgment was final.
Relevance of judge’s extraneous remarks at sentencing	Remarks reflected context for judge’s view of seriousness and deterrence.	Comments about Moynihan Report, Tet, and personal anecdotes were irrelevant and risked injecting improper considerations.	Remarks were concerning but not so tainted as to require remand on that ground alone; court cautioned judges to avoid such irrelevant references.

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (major departures require more significant justification; explanation must permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory post‑Booker)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (Guidelines provide an important benchmark; appellate review must be meaningful)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may disagree with Guidelines’ policy judgments)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (noting heightened Eighth Amendment concerns for severe juvenile sentences)
Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (judgment that orders imprisonment is a final judgment)
United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding substantial but smaller above‑guideline variance based on extraordinary victim harm)
United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (conditions of supervised release are part of the sentence)
United States v. Robinson, 829 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2016) (remand required where irrelevant sentencing remarks may have influenced the sentence)
United States v. Ray, 831 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2016) (procedures for modifying supervised‑release terms while an appeal is pending)