United States v. Rontae Hayes
698 F. App'x 85
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hayes pled guilty, via amended plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court imposed an upward variant sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment above the Guidelines range.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning whether the district court sufficiently considered the § 3553(a) factors and whether the sentence was substantively reasonable.
- Hayes was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
- The court based its upward variance in part on Hayes selling a stolen firearm, admitting to supplying firearms to gang members, and an extremely violent criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors | Hayes argues the court did not provide a sufficiently individualized assessment | Government argues the court gave a lengthy, explicit explanation addressing relevant factors | Court held the sentencing explanation was sufficient and considered § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether mitigating factors were ignored | Hayes contends mitigating evidence was not given proper weight | Government contends court did not ignore mitigating factors and addressed them | Court held mitigating factors were considered and not ignored |
| Whether an upward variance was justified | Hayes argues the upward variance was substantively unreasonable | Government argues variance justified by criminal history, role in supplying guns, and sale of stolen firearm | Court held the upward variance was substantively reasonable given totality of circumstances |
| Whether any meritorious appeal exists under Anders | Hayes (via counsel) asserts no nonfrivolous issues for appeal | Government defends reasonableness of sentence and procedure | Court affirmed and found no meritorious grounds for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appellate arguments are frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2016) (appellate review of sentencing reasonableness follows Gall)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (deference to district court’s judgment on the extent of a variance)