United States v. Suerenza Nixon
698 F. App'x 757
4th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Suerenza Tyre Nixon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute ≥500 grams of cocaine and a quantity of cocaine base in violation of federal law.
- Presentence report produced a Guidelines range of 151–188 months after the district court sustained Nixon’s sole objection.
- Nixon requested a slight variance below the Guidelines range based primarily on adverse effects of his pretrial confinement; the Government sought a high-end Guidelines sentence.
- The district court imposed a 151-month sentence (the low end of the Guidelines range) and provided an on-the-record explanation.
- Nixon appealed, arguing the court failed adequately to consider his request for a slight variance based on pretrial confinement; the Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider and explain rejection of Nixon’s request for a slight variance based on pretrial confinement | Nixon: court did not adequately consider or explain denial of his variance request tied to pretrial confinement | Government: court considered Nixon’s arguments and gave an adequate, individualized explanation for a within-Guidelines sentence | Court: district court did consider the arguments and provided a sufficiently individualized explanation; any deficiency would be harmless; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive review of sentencing)
- United States v. White, 850 F.3d 667 (4th Cir.) (2017) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption rebuttal by § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (review for harmless procedural sentencing error)
- United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015) (requirement for individualized § 3553(a) assessment and adequate on-the-record explanation)
- United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2010) (greater explanation required for departures; within-Guidelines explanations need not be elaborate)
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error analysis for sentencing explanation defects)