United States v. Franklin Blake
693 F. App'x 242
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Franklin Sankey Blake pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and was sentenced to 91 months imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Blake’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioned whether Guidelines provisions tied to pseudoephedrine warrant reduced deference as a policy matter.
- At sentencing counsel argued the pseudoephedrine-related Guidelines were overly punitive and lacked sufficient empirical support, asking the court to vary downward on policy grounds.
- The district court acknowledged its authority to vary from the Guidelines but declined to reduce Blake’s sentence on the requested policy basis.
- The Fourth Circuit conducted the required procedural and substantive review, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should afford reduced deference to pseudoephedrine-related Guidelines | Blake: Guidelines are overly punitive and lack sufficient empirical support; court should vary downward on policy grounds | Government: (implicitly) district court should apply Guidelines as the starting point and deny policy-based variance | Court: District court may consider policy but is not obligated to; it properly declined to vary and sentence is affirmed |
| Whether the district court recognized authority to vary from the Guidelines | Blake: Court should exercise variance power due to Guidelines’ policy flaws | Court: (n/a) | Court: Record shows district court understood and declined to vary — no procedural error |
| Procedural reasonableness of the sentence | Blake: Sentencing procedure was flawed by refusal to give less deference to Guidelines | Government: Sentence within Guidelines is presumptively reasonable | Court: No procedural error; sentencing range properly calculated and applied |
| Substantive reasonableness of the 91-month sentence | Blake: Policy concerns warrant a lower sentence | Government: Within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Court: Within-Guidelines sentence is not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines remain the starting point and initial benchmark for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (courts may impose non-Guidelines sentences based on disagreement with the Sentencing Commission)
- White, 850 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2017) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
- Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2012) (sentencing courts may consider policy and empirical data but are not obligated to)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures counsel must follow when asserting lack of meritorious appellate issues)