United States v. Raphel Smith, 541 F. App'x 306

Raphel Smith was convicted by jury of drug offenses (conspiracy to distribute ≥50g cocaine base; two distribution counts) and one firearms offense (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense).
Initial sentence: concurrent 235-month terms on the drug counts and a consecutive 60 months on the § 924(c) count; Fourth Circuit affirmed convictions but vacated sentence for procedural error (managerial-role enhancement) and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the district court imposed concurrent 168-month terms on the drug counts and a consecutive 60 months on the § 924(c) count; Smith appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence and Guidelines calculations and the reasonableness of the new sentence.
The Fourth Circuit held the sufficiency and drug-weight arguments were foreclosed by the law-of-the-case doctrine from the prior appeal.
The court found procedural sentencing error on remand: the district court failed to provide an adequate individualized assessment or sufficient explanation for denying Smith’s request for a downward variance and did not meaningfully address his nonfrivolous arguments (criminal-history score, family ties, rehabilitation).
Because the explanation was insufficient and the government did not show harmlessness, the court affirmed convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing with directions to provide a fuller § 3553(a) assessment and explanation.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Evidence insufficient; Rule 29 motion should have been granted	Convictions supported by trial record	Foreclosed by law of the case (prior appeal)
Drug-weight calculation under Guidelines	District court miscalculated drug weight	Calculation was proper	Foreclosed by law of the case
Procedural reasonableness: adequacy of explanation for denying a downward variance	Court failed to address nonfrivolous arguments (criminal-history overstatement, family, rehabilitation) and provide individualized § 3553(a) analysis	Court considered arguments and imposed within-Guidelines sentence; prior sentencing remarks showed reluctance to vary	Reversed for procedural error: explanation inadequate, remand required
Harmlessness of procedural error	Error affected ability to obtain fair consideration and appellate review	Error was harmless because arguments not compelling and prior remarks could support sentence	Government failed to show harmlessness; remand necessary

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets reasonableness review framework and requirement for individualized assessment)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (requires individualized assessment and adequate explanation under § 3553(a))
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district judge must address nonfrivolous sentencing arguments)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasoned explanation requirement promotes fair sentencing and appellate review)
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (government bears burden to show procedural error harmless)
United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2012) (procedural error need not be revisited on substantive reasonableness when remand required)
United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655 (4th Cir. 1999) (law-of-the-case exceptions explained)
L.J. v. Wilbon, 633 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2011) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)
United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2008) (limits appellate review of district court’s refusal to depart when record lacks basis to challenge court’s understanding of its authority)