United States v. Jon Provance, 944 F.3d 213

Background

In 2015 Jon William Provance repeatedly injured his three‑month‑old son; medical exam revealed multiple fractures in different healing stages. He pled guilty to one count of assault causing bodily injury to a victim under 16 (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(7)).
The PSR calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 33–41 months (ineligible for probation under the Guidelines).
At sentencing Provance accepted responsibility, sought a downward variance based on remorse, lack of criminal history, employment, and rehabilitative efforts; the Government sought a within‑Guidelines term.
The district court varied dramatically downward, imposing five years probation, 200 hours community service, supervised contact with the child, and other conditions instead of imprisonment.
During sentencing the court repeatedly questioned the mother’s role (maternity leave, work obligations), prompting concern the court considered her "relative culpability." The court gave no articulated § 3553(a)‑based explanation for the large variance.
The Government appealed only on substantive‑reasonableness grounds; the Fourth Circuit nonetheless reviewed procedural reasonableness, concluded the district court failed to provide any sufficient explanation for the variance, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Government's Argument	Provance's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court must review procedural reasonableness before substantive	Govt argued sentence substantively unreasonable and said procedural issues not at stake	Provance argued Govt waived procedural challenges by not raising them	Court held procedural review is mandatory under Gall; it reviewed procedural reasonableness despite Govt's limited argument
Whether district court adequately explained the large downward variance	Govt argued the court relied on an improper factor (mother's culpability) and explanation inadequate	Provance pointed to remorse, mitigation, rehabilitation and family considerations to justify variance	Court held the court gave no adequate § 3553(a)‑based explanation; vacated as procedurally unreasonable
Whether the district court impermissibly relied on the mother’s relative culpability	Govt pointed to the court's questioning about mother’s maternity leave and presence as evidence of improper focus	Provance disputed that the sentence was based on that factor or argued other mitigating reasons supported variance	Court declined to infer a permissible rationale from the record; noted reliance on mother's culpability would be improper but remanded for explanation
Whether the below‑Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable	Govt argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the seriousness and the extent of the variance	Provance argued variance was justified by individualized mitigating facts	Court did not decide substantive reasonableness because procedural inadequacy foreclosed meaningful review; remanded

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate courts must first ensure no significant procedural error and assess substantive reasonableness thereafter)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentencing judge should set forth enough reasoning to permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court must address nonfrivolous arguments and explain rejection sufficiently)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts consider substantive reasonableness only after finding procedural reasonableness)
United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905 (4th Cir. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard governs sentencing review)
United States v. Montes‑Pineda, 455 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) (court cannot assume consideration of arguments when record does not make it patently obvious)
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006) (greater deviations from Guidelines require more compelling justifications)
United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398 (4th Cir. 2017) (substantive reasonableness review considers totality of circumstances after procedural compliance)