United States v. Larry Nance
957 F.3d 204
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Defendant Larry Lamar Nance pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin (Count One) and to using/carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Count Three), reserving the right to appeal any sentence above the Guidelines range.
- Police recovered drugs and a loaded .45 handgun from Nance’s vehicle after two April–May 2017 incidents; earlier arrests included dismissed violent charges and repeated probation violations; PSR documented an extensive criminal history and 79 disciplinary infractions while incarcerated.
- The PSR calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 21–27 months on Count One and a mandatory consecutive 60 months on Count Three (effective range 81–87 months); the PSR and government suggested an upward departure/variance.
- The government sought 262–327 months (upward departure/variance), arguing significant recidivism and danger; defense sought a Guidelines sentence, emphasizing that Nance’s violent offenses were youthful and that more recent offenses were nonviolent or dismissed.
- The district court varied upward on Count One to 63 months (plus the mandatory 60-month consecutive § 924(c) term), for a total of 123 months, citing dangerousness, recidivism, disciplinary history, and recent arrests; it also recommended intensive substance-abuse and mental-health treatment.
- On appeal, Nance argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding the sentencing explanation and the upward variance reasonable under § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence | Nance: district court failed to adequately explain reasons for upward variance/departure | Government: court conducted individualized assessment, engaged defense, and explained § 3553(a) basis | Affirmed — court’s explanations and engagement at sentencing were sufficient; transcript and statement of reasons show individualized consideration |
| Substantive reasonableness of the variance (extent of upward deviation) | Nance: variance is excessive; court overemphasized stale/juvenile offenses and should have given weight to post-2013 nonviolent conduct | Government: variance justified by Nance’s adult recidivism, assaultive 2017 arrests, prison infractions, and public-protection concerns | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; it focused on adult conduct and recidivism and reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors; deviation not presumptively unreasonable |
| Proper characterization as departure vs variance and role of juvenile-brain argument | Nance: procedural rules for an upward departure (given youthful offenses and neuroscience arguments) were not satisfied | Government: regardless of departure technicalities, the variance rationale independently supports the sentence | Affirmed as variance; concurrence notes that if treated as a departure, court should explicitly address diminished culpability arguments tied to delayed frontal-lobe development |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion reasonableness review for sentences and standards for variance)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review may defer to district court’s reasoned sentencing decision)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (reversal where district court imposed extreme sentence based largely on stale juvenile record)
- United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (explains need for individualized assessment and that transcripts are evaluated in context)
- United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2010) (totality-of-the-circumstances substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) (court must indicate consideration of § 3553(a) factors and nonfrivolous mitigating arguments)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (court cannot be assumed to have silently adopted party arguments; record must show consideration)
- United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholding variance when district court gives independent, reasonable justification)
- United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669 (4th Cir. 2011) (district courts have broad discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors)