UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAQUIN JAMAL PRATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cr-00337-BO-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: March 6, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amos G. Tyndall, PARRY TYNDALL WHITE, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaquin Jamal Pratt appeals his 120-month sentence following his guilty plea to
interference with commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1951 (2018). On appeal, Pratt argues that the district court committed procedural
error by failing to properly consider the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2018) and by failing to explain why these factors justified the sentence imposed.
Pratt further argues that his above-Sentencing-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. Because the district court’s explanation of the chosen sentence was
insufficient, we vacate Pratt’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) using an
abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether the sentence is inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111
(4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007) (alteration omitted)).
This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness
of the sentence. Id. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the
parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 49-51. Arguments made under § 3553(a) for a sentence different than the one
eventually imposed are sufficient to preserve claims that the district court erred in not
adequately explaining its rejection of sentencing arguments. United States v. Lynn, 592
2
F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010). Only after determining that the sentence is procedurally
reasonable do we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51.
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented” and explain the basis for the sentence sufficiently
to “allow[ ] for meaningful appellate review” and to “promote[ ] the perception of fair
sentencing.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted). The district court “must address or consider all non-
frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why [it] has
rejected those arguments.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir.) cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 206 (2019). “The adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends on
the complexity of each case. There is no mechanical approach to our sentencing review.
The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say,
depends upon the circumstances.” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 518 (4th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing
court’s rationale from the context surrounding its decision,” but an appellate court “may
not guess at the district court’s rationale, searching the record for statements by the
Government or defense counsel or for any other clues that might explain a sentence.” Ross,
912 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, it is “uncontroversial that
a major departure” from the Guidelines “should be supported by a more significant
justification than a minor one.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
Here, the district court focused nearly exclusively on the nature and circumstances
of the offense and failed to explain how any of the other § 3553(a) factors supported the
3
chosen sentence, which was a significant upward variance from the Guidelines range.
Moreover, the district court failed to address counsel’s arguments regarding Pratt’s
upbringing, mental issues, drug use, and lack of significant prior criminal history. The
district court’s insufficient explanation constitutes procedural error.
If we find procedural error, we must vacate unless the error was harmless.
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 379 (4th Cir. 2014). Under harmless error
review, the Government “may avoid reversal only if it demonstrates that the error did not
have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the result,” and this court can
conclude, “with fair assurance” that explicit consideration of the defendant’s arguments
would not have affected the outcome. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We cannot say with fair assurance that a
more robust consideration of Pratt’s nonfrivolous arguments would have had no impact on
the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the district court’s error was not harmless.
We therefore vacate Pratt’s sentence and remand for resentencing. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4