United States v. Geoffrey Nwafor
664 F. App'x 324
4th Cir.2016Background
- Geoffrey Nwafor pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing a proposed Sentencing Guidelines amendment (pending Congressional approval) would have reduced his Guidelines exposure, which Nwafor urged the court to consider.
- Nwafor sought a downward variance based on the pending amendment and other mitigating arguments.
- The district court acknowledged the proposed amendment, considered Nwafor’s arguments, but imposed 28 months based on his prior aggravated drug felony, identity theft after reentry, receipt of fraudulent benefits, and the need for deterrence.
- Nwafor appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no procedural error and that the within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable and unrebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Nwafor: court failed to adequately consider pending Guidelines amendment and his motion for a downward variance | Government: court considered the amendment and Nwafor's request and explained basis for sentence | Court: No procedural error; district court considered amendment and §3553(a) factors and gave adequate explanation |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Nwafor: sentence is substantively unreasonable because it's higher than it would be under the proposed amendment | Government: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable absent evidence to rebut | Court: Affirmed; Nwafor failed to rebut the presumption applicable to a properly calculated within-Guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness and requirement to consider §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must make an individualized assessment sufficient for meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines sentences carry a presumption of substantive reasonableness)