The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina committed procedural error by failing to address the defendant’s arguments for a lower sentence and failing to provide an individualized explanation for the sentence it imposed because the absence of an individualized explanation for a sentence constitutes error. The defendant’s sentence was vacated and case remanded for resentencing.

Before the Court was the second appeal of Jarvis Mikel Jackson, who pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Both appeals raised the same issue and netted the same result but on different grounds.

A presentence report (“PSR”) added points for Jackson’s two prior convictions in South Carolina for drug distribution in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), resulting in an enhanced base offense level of 26 and an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment. The District Court imposed a prison sentence of 115 months.

On the first appeal, Jackson argued that using the two prior South Carolina drug distribution convictions as “controlled substance offenses” under the Guidelines was error. That argument was based on the holding in United States v. Campbell, 22 F. 4th 438 (4th Cir. 2022), which held that a violation of West Virginia’s controlled substances statute does not qualify as a Guidelines controlled substances violation. In an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit agreed with Jackson, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of Campbell. (“Jackson I”).

Shortly thereafter, the Fourth Circuit issued two published opinions on the Campbell issue. First, the Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Groves, 65 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2023), that Campbell notwithstanding, a federal drug distribution conviction under the federal controlled substances statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), is a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. Next, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Davis, 75 F.4th 428 (4th Cir. 2023), held that drug distribution under South Carolina Code § 44-53-375(B) was “materially distinguishable” from the statute in Campbell, and convictions under that statute constitute a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. Both opinions rejected Jackson I as controlling because it was a nonprecedential, unpublished opinion.

On remand, Jackson again argued the Campbell issue. The District Court rejected that argument, finding that Davis controlled and that his South Carolina convictions were still controlled substance offenses under the Guidelines. The District Court adopted the PSR’s base offense level of 26 and Guidelines range of 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to a prison term of 115 months. Notably, the court did not “discuss the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or otherwise explain the basis for Jackson’s sentence in any detail.” Jackson I. Rather, the court merely stated that it believed it calculated the Guidelines range correctly and concluded that Jackson’s case was “a typical case contemplated by the [G]uidelines.” Jackson timely appealed.

On appeal for the second time, Jackson raised two issues. First, he raised the Campbell issue, but the Court agreed with the District Court that Davis controlled and that a conviction in South Carolina for drug distribution is a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. Therefore, the Court rejected Jackson’s argument regarding the first issue. 

Next, Jackson argued that the District Court failed to sufficiently explain the 115-month sentence it imposed or why it refused to apply a downward variance to his sentence. Even with a Guidelines range of 110 to 120 months, the District Court should have varied down to a term of between 63 and 78 months under the § 3553(a) factors, according to Jackson. The Court agreed with Jackson that the District Court did not address his argument for a downward variant sentence, and it failed to explain the 115-month sentence it imposed. These failures constituted “procedural error warranting a vacatur of his sentence and a remand for resentencing,” the Court held. 

“A district court is required to provide an individualized assessment based on the facts before the court, and to explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2020). The Court explained that when a defendant—like Jackson—is being resentenced on remand following an appeal, new “evidence of [the] defendant’s rehabilitation since his prior sentencing” may “support a downward variance” from the Guidelines range. Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011). 

The Court noted that the District Court stated that it “has considered those factors under” § 3553(a) without identifying what “those factors” were. The District Court failed to address any individualized fact relied upon in imposing Jackson’s sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (a District Court’s explanation of its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some individualized assessment justifying the sentence imposed). The District Court also failed to identify any § 3553(a) factors it considered, nor did it explain how any § 3553(a) factor “applied” to “the particular” defendant before it, according to the Court. Nance. 

Similarly, the Court stated that the District Court did not “mention, engage with, or rule on Jackson’s request for a downward variance.” See United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (a District Court must address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence). The District Court also failed to discuss the “heart of Jackson’s argument for a downward variance: that his post-sentencing conduct—exemplary disciplinary record, GED classes, and the like—were evidence of rehabilitation,” the Court stated. Nance (a District Court must indicate that it has considered arguments for a lower sentence). Thus, the Court held that the District Court “committed procedural error when it failed to address [the foregoing] arguments and to provide an individualized explanation for the sentence it selected.” 

The Court expressed no view on the merits of Jackson’s argument for a downward variant sentence. 

Accordingly, the Court vacated Jackson’s sentence and remanded for resentencing proceedings consistent with its opinion. See: United States v. Jackson, 127 F.4th 448 (4th Cir. 2025).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case