United States v. Xavier Lymas
781 F.3d 106
4th Cir.2015Background
- Gomez, Lymas, Newman (and Morales) participated in a four-day convenience-store robbery spree in Fayetteville, NC, in October 2011; the group committed/attempted multiple Hobbs Act robberies and used firearms.
- All three appellants pleaded guilty to Count One (Hobbs Act conspiracy) and Count Three (use/carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence); other counts were dismissed.
- PSR recommendations differed: Lymas (Offense Level 25, CHC II, range 63–78 months + 60 months §924(c)); Newman (Level 26, CHC V, range 110–137 months + 60 months); Gomez (Level 27, CHC IV, range 100–125 months + 60 months).
- District court rejected Guidelines as underrepresenting seriousness and, to avoid disparity among participants, imposed identical substantive sentences on each: 140 months on the robbery count (upward variances) plus consecutive 60 months §924(c) for total 200 months.
- Appellants appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness; the Fourth Circuit found procedural error and vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain upward variances | Appellants: court failed to provide individualized reasons and explain rejection of Guidelines; lumped defendants together | Government: court permissibly varied under §3553(a) based on crime seriousness and to avoid disparity | Held: Procedural error — court failed to give individualized, fact-specific rationales and adequate explanation for rejecting the Guidelines |
| Whether the district court’s rejection of the Guidelines as underpunishing was sufficiently justified | Appellants: blanket rejection without detailed analysis insufficient | Government: Guidelines underrepresent repeated violent robberies and danger to community | Held: Wholesale rejection of Guidelines requires more detailed justification than provided |
| Whether sentencing to equal terms among defendants was permissible to avoid disparity | Appellants: defendants had different roles, conduct, and criminal histories; disparity avoidance requires similar records/conduct | Government: equal sentences appropriate to punish the crime and protect community | Held: Court improperly based sentences on the crime rather than individualized defendant circumstances; §3553(a)(6) (avoid unwarranted disparities) inapplicable because records/conduct were not similar |
| Whether remand is required | Appellants: yes, for individualized sentencing consideration | Government: likely argues sentence reasonable on the record | Held: Vacated and remanded for resentencing with individualized §3553(a) analysis and explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing and requirements when varying from Guidelines)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines and must justify variances, with greater detail required when rejecting Guidelines’ judgments)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Guidelines reflect §3553(a) factors and ordinarily serve as a starting point)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district courts must provide individualized rationale applying §3553(a) to the defendant)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (explanation must justify rejection of arguments and be adequate for meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (procedural and substantive components of sentencing reasonableness review)
- United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2003) (Guidelines principle of proportionality: matching punishment with culpability)