Harmless Error Saves Court from Resolving Crime of Violence Issue

US v. Mills: Mills pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, his base offense level was enhanced based on a prior conviction in North Carolina for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, which was deemed a “crime of violence.” The resulting advisory Guideline range was 70 to 87 months in prison. Mills objected to that designation and argued for a sentence within a range of 37 to 46 months in prison. The district court concluded the conviction was a crime of violent and imposed a 70-month sentence, explaining that it would have imposed the same sentence even if the Guideline calculations had been different.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence. It avoided the question of whether the North Carolina prior conviction was a crime of violence because even if there was an error, the error was harmless. First, the district court specifically said on the record it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guideline calculations. Second, the court concluded, that 70-month sentence was otherwise reasonable, noting that the issue was its substantive reasonableness, not its procedural reasonableness. Thus it was irrelevant whether the district court did not adequately address Mills’ mitigation arguments, which might have been more persuasive with a lower Guideline range.