United States v. Gantt
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10885
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gantt pleaded guilty to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and received a 20-year sentence, to be served consecutively to other terms.
- Credit Union robbery occurred with a 9-mm pistol; $7,803 stolen; money recovered after stop and search of the car.
- Guidelines provide no range for 924(c); guideline sentence is the statutory minimum (seven years).
- At sentencing, the court stated a range from seven years to life and then imposed 20 years, describing it as a variance from the guideline sentence.
- Defense noted the seven-year guideline sentence; the court maintained the variance and later refused to modify it after a second hearing.
- Defendant argued procedural defects and unwarranted disparities; he challenged the substantive reasonableness of the 20-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the variance and its justification were procedurally proper | Gantt contends improper departure/variance reasoning | Gantt asserts lack of proper explanation and compliance | Variance properly explained; no departure requirements apply |
| Whether the district court adequately considered the seven-year guideline sentence | Gantt argues guideline was ignored at the second hearing | Gantt contends the court failed to meaningfully address seven-year guideline | Court acknowledged seven-year guideline and still variance was appropriate |
| Whether the court failed to consider § 3553(a)(6) unwarranted disparities | Gantt claims disparity with others; failure to address disparities | Gantt argues court did not discuss disparities | Court discussed disparity sufficiency; no plain error |
| Whether the court erred in not considering self-defense related prior aggravated battery | Gantt argues prior aggravated-battery was self-defense | Gantt asserts court ignored self-defense context | Court properly read PSR; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the 20-year sentence is substantively reasonable | O'Brien data show typical sentences; 20 years may be high | Sentence is disproportionately long for brandishing alone | 20-year term within range given offense, history, and public protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (consideration of § 3553(a) factors; avoid unwarranted disparities)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (guidelines advisory; appellate deferential review of sentences)
- Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d 894 (10th Cir. 2008) (variance framework; no need to detail every § 3553(a) factor)
- Mollner, 643 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard for procedural reasonableness review in sentencing)
- Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework for unpreserved sentencing issues)
- Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court need not recite magic words to show compliance with factors)
- Pinson, 542 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2008) (variance may be used without detailing every § 3553(a) factor)
- O'Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (S. Ct. 2010) (machinegun as element; not a sentencing factor; context for data on sentences)