United States v. Philip Friend
2 F.4th 369
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- In 1999, at age 15, Philip Friend participated with family members in a series of violent carjackings, beatings, and murders; he bound and beat victims and recruited an associate in one killing.
- Friend pleaded guilty in 2000; the district court imposed 180 months on one count and life without parole on the carjacking-resulting-in-death count under then-mandatory Guidelines.
- After Miller and Montgomery, Friend successfully challenged his mandatory life sentence; the case was remanded for resentencing.
- In 2017 the district court resentenced Friend to 65 years; the Fourth Circuit vacated that sentence for inadequate explanation about how the court weighed his juvenile status and family influence.
- At a 2020 resentencing the court heard extensive mitigation (psychological testimony, prison record, comparisons to other post-Miller resentencings) and imposed 52 years; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- Judge Floyd dissented, arguing the district court failed to adequately address each of Friend’s nonfrivolous mitigation arguments and that the 52-year term is an outlier among post‑Miller resentencings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment (Miller/Montgomery) challenge | Friend: 52-year term violates juvenile-sentencing protections (mandatory/de facto life concerns) | Government: sentence discretionary, not life without parole; court considered youth and individualized factors | Affirmed — no Eighth Amendment violation; sentence discretionary and individualized |
| De facto life sentence (term-of-years equates to life) | Friend: a very long term can be functionally equivalent to life without parole | Government: long terms can be constitutional; here release is projected in his 60s and not equivalent to parole‑barred life | Affirmed — 52 years does not amount to life without parole in this case |
| Procedural reasonableness (adequacy of explanation; remand compliance) | Friend: district court still focused primarily on offense seriousness and did not adequately address each nonfrivolous mitigation argument (juvenility, family influence, learning disability, non‑triggerman role) | Government: district court conducted a lengthy, reasoned review of §3553(a) factors, expressly considered juvenile factors and prior guidance, and reduced the sentence | Affirmed — court provided sufficient explanation and complied with remand mandate |
| Substantive reasonableness and disparity | Friend: 52 years is substantively unreasonable and an outlier compared with other post‑Miller resentencings | Government: sentencing is fact‑specific; lower-than‑Guidelines sentence (13‑year reduction) is presumptively reasonable and within discretion | Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment and requires individualized consideration)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively on collateral review; courts must consider juvenile characteristics)
- Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021) (discretionary sentencing systems satisfying Miller do not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles have diminished culpability and characteristics relevant to sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing; procedural and substantive standards)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review assesses whether district court considered parties’ arguments and provided reasoned basis)
- United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2020) (post‑Miller resentencing principles; review for reasonableness)
- United States v. Avila, 770 F.3d 1100 (4th Cir. 2014) (district court explanation need not be exhaustive but must show consideration of arguments)
- United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court must address nonfrivolous arguments for downward variance)
- United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (requires district courts to explain rejection of nonfrivolous sentencing arguments)
- United States v. Portillo, 981 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2020) (upholding lengthy term-of-years for juvenile offender as constitutional alternative to life)
- United States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2020) (upholding long term for juvenile offender; sentencing courts may weigh institutional record)
- United States v. Sparks, 941 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2019) (lengthy term-of-years is not ipso facto a life sentence)