Failure to Adequately Address Mitigation Arguments Requires Vacation

 US v. Webb: Webb was convicted on multiple drug-related charges after a jury trial. At sentencing, he faced a recommended Guideline sentence of life in prison. At sentencing, he argued for a lesser sentence, arguing both that he had begun to turn away from drugs and crime prior to his arrest and that other higher-ranking members of the conspiracy received lesser sentences. He also argued that given his age a lesser sentence would lead to his release at an age where recidivism has typically greatly reduced. The Government responded to these arguments, but the district court did not, eventually imposing a sentence of life in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Webb’s convictions, but vacated his sentence as procedurally unreasonable. That was because “[n]owhere in the district court’s brief explanation of its sentence” did it mention Webb’s arguments as to his age and the sentencing disparities with his coconspirators. The Government did not dispute this, but argued that it was clear from the “context” of the hearing that the district court considered the arguments. The court disagreed, noting that while the district court provided Webb the opportunity to make mitigating arguments, it did not engage with them and those are “separate requirements of procedural reasonableness.”