United States v. Steven Bethea, 20-4015

In 2008 Bethea pled guilty to (1) using/possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (predicate: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery) and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924.
The robbery plan culminated in a police encounter: the car crashed, Bethea and codefendant Taylor fled armed; Taylor later assaulted and shot a police officer.
The district court originally sentenced Bethea to 252 months; he did not appeal.
The district court later vacated Bethea’s § 924(c) conviction (citing United States v. Davis) and resentenced him on the remaining § 922(g)(1) conviction. The Guidelines range at resentencing was 180–188 months.
The district court varied upward to 252 months again, citing the offense’s extraordinary seriousness, Bethea’s criminal history, foreseeability of Taylor’s violence, and § 3553(a) factors (deterrence, incapacitation, respect for law), while crediting mitigation and cooperation.
Bethea appealed, arguing the upward variance was an abuse of discretion (reasons already contemplated by the Guidelines), rendered the sentence substantively unreasonable, and violated the Eighth Amendment; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing an upward variance above the Guidelines at resentencing after vacatur of one count	Bethea: court improperly reimposed the same aggregate sentence because the reasons for the upward variance were already accounted for in the Guidelines and vacatur of one count required resentencing reduction	Government: court may reevaluate remaining counts after vacatur and properly weighed §3553(a) factors to justify variance	Court: No abuse of discretion; district court permissibly reviewed the remaining exposure and adequately explained reasons for upward variance and sentence
Whether the upward variance was procedurally or substantively unreasonable	Bethea: variance was an after‑the‑fact justification and substantively excessive	Government: district court considered mitigation, credited cooperation, and reasonably weighed seriousness/foreseeability and deterrence	Court: Procedurally sound; substantive reasonableness upheld under deferential review (Gall) and due deference to district court’s weighing
Whether the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment (gross disproportionality)	Bethea: 252 months is disproportionate to his single remaining conviction	Government: no gross disproportionality; no entitlement to extended comparative analysis	Court: No plain error; Bethea failed to show threshold inference of gross disproportionality, so Eighth Amendment claim fails

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated §924(c) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentence reasonableness)
United States v. Ventura, 864 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2017) (after vacatur, district court may reassess remaining counts as part of overall sentencing plan)
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) (consider totality of circumstances in substantive-reasonableness review)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (no presumption of reasonableness for above-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014) (review both decision to vary and extent of variance)
United States v. Spencer, 848 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2017) (extraordinary circumstances not required to justify a variance)
United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398 (4th Cir. 2017) (deference to district court’s weighing of §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2014) (framework for Eighth Amendment proportionality review)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard)