United States v. Jackson, 2:16-cr-00054

Robert Black pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (including trafficking minors) after a multistate trafficking indictment involving ten defendants.
The presentence report detailed abuse of five victims (including a 16‑year‑old, K.S.), and calculated a total Guidelines offense level of 35 and Criminal History Category III, yielding an advisory range of 210–262 months.
Black submitted a sentencing memorandum seeking a downward variance based on childhood trauma, substance addiction, limited and low‑level prior offenses, parental responsibilities, and documented rehabilitation efforts (mental‑health treatment, GED study, counseling programs).
At sentencing the district court emphasized the violence against K.S. and Black’s criminal history, rejected Black’s addiction explanation, but did not address most of his mitigation evidence on the record.
The court imposed a 240‑month prison term and lifetime supervised release, including eleven special supervised‑release conditions adopted from the PSR without explanation.
On appeal Black argued, inter alia, that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to address his nonfrivolous mitigation evidence; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing on that ground alone.

Issue	Black's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failing to address nonfrivolous mitigation evidence	The district court ignored substantial, nonfrivolous mitigation (childhood trauma, addiction, rehabilitation, role as father) and thus failed to make an individualized assessment required by § 3553(a) and Gall	The court may reject routine or "stock" mitigation without extended discussion; Black's evidence was common and need not be detailed on the record	Reversed: district court procedurally erred by not addressing Black's nonfrivolous mitigation; vacated and remanded for resentencing
Whether error was harmless	Black argued the failure to address mitigation could have affected sentence (e.g., criminal‑history weighting)	Government argued any error was harmless and would not have changed the sentence	Held government did not meet burden to show harmlessness; remand required for explicit consideration

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must consider § 3553(a) factors and adequately explain chosen sentence)
United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020) (failure to address nonfrivolous mitigation is procedural error)
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (district court must consider defendant's mitigation arguments)
United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2020) (court must put on the record its consideration of nonfrivolous mitigation and explain rejection)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (appellate court will not guess at district court's rationale where court failed to address mitigation)
United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2020) (government bears burden to show harmlessness of sentencing error)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (appellate court cannot affirm sentence without fair assurance district court would have imposed same sentence after proper consideration)