United States v. Kenyad Kelly, 20-4417

Appellant Kenyad Laquan Kelly pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The PSR yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 21–27 months.
The district court imposed a 36‑month sentence, nine months above the Guidelines range, citing deterrence and public protection.
At sentencing the court explained it relied on Kelly’s prior federal sentences (which had not deterred him) as a benchmark for the upward variance and discussed § 3553(a) factors.
Kelly appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Kelly's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: Did the district court procedurally err by substituting its own mechanism for the Guidelines and failing adequately to consider § 3553(a)?	The court replaced the Guidelines’ role and did not adequately consider or explain § 3553(a) factors.	The court considered the Guidelines, addressed § 3553(a) factors, and provided a reasoned basis for its variance.	Affirmed — no procedural error; court considered the Guidelines and § 3553(a) and gave a reasoned explanation.
Substantive reasonableness: Was a 9‑month upward variance unreasonable?	The variance was greater than necessary and unsupported, rendering the sentence substantively unreasonable.	The upward variance was justified by the need to protect the public and deter recurrent offenses given Kelly’s history.	Affirmed — sentence was substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 36‑month sentence.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review and standards for reasonableness review)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (applies reasonableness review to within/outside Guideline sentences)
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) (requirements for procedural reasonableness and explanation)
United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167 (4th Cir.) (district court need not recite every § 3553(a) subsection verbatim)
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (consider both decision to vary and extent of variance)
United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905 (4th Cir. 2017) (vacatur required if court relies on improper factors)
United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398 (4th Cir. 2017) (review gives due deference to district court’s balancing of § 3553(a) factors)