District Court Sufficiently Explained Upward Variance

US v. Nance: Nance was at the scene when police responded to a noise complaint, then fled when they announced they were going to apply for warrants to search the home. Officers eventually found multiple types of drugs in Nance’s car. He was arrested later that day on state charges and released. Two days later, Nance was arrested after police responded to a domestic dispute call and this time was found to be in possession of a handgun as well as drugs. He was arrested on state charges and released. Nance eventually pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent and one count of possessing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. His advisory Guideline range was 21 to 27 months on the drug count, plus a 60-month consecutive term on the gun count. The district court imposed a total sentence of 123 months in prison – 63 months on the drug count and the mandatory 60 months on the gun count.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Nance’s sentence. Nance argued that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. As to procedural reasonableness, the court rejected Nance’s argument that the district court did not sufficiently explain the sentence it imposed, particularly the upward variance/departure on the drug count. It did so because the district court “conducted a thorough sentencing hearing, engaging defense counsel’s arguments, explaining where it found them wanting, and recessing so that additional relevant information could be considered.” The district court also “imposed a sentence individualized to Nance, taking into account” his history and characteristics. As to substantive reasonableness, the court concluded that the district court did not put undue weight on Nance’s older criminal history (including juvenile convictions) that involved violent offenses. It also noted that the sentence imposed, while an upward variance, was well below the sentence requested by the Government.