Broad Discretion for Upward Variances Under Section 3553(a): United States v. Walters

Introduction

United States v. Walters (10th Cir. May 22, 2025) involved an appeal by Edward Walters from a 72-month sentence imposed for firearms and explosives offenses after an armed standoff with law enforcement. Walters challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court’s 15-month upward variance was based on facts already accounted for in the Guidelines and resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The Tenth Circuit, affirming the district court, clarified the scope of judicial discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose upward variances even when aggravating factors overlap with the advisory Guidelines range.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel affirmed Walters’s 72-month prison sentence. It held that:

District courts have broad discretion under § 3553(a) to consider facts already accounted for in the advisory Guidelines when deciding on an upward variance.
A sentencing court may impose a variance if it (1) explains how it weighed the § 3553(a) factors, and (2) articulates valid reasons for the chosen sentence.
Comparative sentences in other cases do not alone demonstrate an unwarranted disparity absent substantially similar facts and offender characteristics.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Barnes (890 F.3d 910, 10th Cir. 2018): Recognized that district courts may consider facts twice—once in calculating the Guidelines and again under § 3553(a)—if the court provides a cogent explanation.
United States v. Lucero (130 F.4th 877, 10th Cir. 2025): Reinforced deference to district courts when they properly weigh the § 3553(a) factors and justify variances.
United States v. McComb (519 F.3d 1049, 10th Cir. 2007): Established the standard of review for substantive reasonableness—abuse of discretion.
United States v. Friedman (554 F.3d 1301, 10th Cir. 2009): Defined “abuse of discretion” in the sentencing context as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
Gall v. United States (552 U.S. 38, 2007): Emphasized the requirement to consider § 3553(a)(6)’s mandate to avoid unwarranted disparities.
United States v. Franklin (785 F.3d 1365, 10th Cir. 2015): Warned against simplistic comparisons to “counsel-selected” cases for disparity arguments.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. It examined whether the district court:

Correctly calculated the Guidelines range (46–57 months) based on an offense level of 23 and Criminal History Category I.
Conducted a thorough § 3553(a) analysis, addressing:
- The nature and circumstances of the offense (armed standoff, pipe bombs, evacuation of a school).
- The defendant’s history and characteristics (military service, PTSD evaluation, repeated domestic-violence arrests, violation of protective orders).
- The need to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and protect the public.
- Comparisons with other offenders, explicitly concluding that Walters’s conduct was more egregious.
Adequately explained why a 15-month upward variance was necessary despite overlap with Guidelines factors, particularly focusing on the cumulative risk posed to neighbors, law enforcement, and a local school.

By articulating “cogent and reasonable” reasons, the district court remained within its broad § 3553(a) discretion. The Tenth Circuit rejected Walters’s argument that consideration of already-counted facts violated the rule against double counting.

Impact

United States v. Walters affirms that district courts may rely on aggravating facts already incorporated in the Guidelines when justifying a variance, provided they:

Clearly identify and explain how § 3553(a) factors support the variance.
Show why the totality of circumstances warrants greater punishment.
Demonstrate they considered unwarranted-disparity concerns without resorting to perfunctory case comparisons.

This decision will guide sentencing courts in the Tenth Circuit—and persuasively elsewhere—on the permissible scope of upward variances and the sufficiency of sentencing explanations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Advisory Guidelines: A sentencing “benchmark” range that judges must calculate but may depart or vary from based on statutory factors.
Upward Variance vs. Departure: A variance adjusts the sentence relative to the advisory Guidelines based on § 3553(a) factors; a departure alters the Guidelines range itself under Guideline provisions.
§ 3553(a) Factors: Statutory sentencing considerations including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, protection of the public, avoiding unwarranted disparities, and required restitution.
Substantive Reasonableness Review: Appellate courts defer to district courts unless the sentence is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.”

Conclusion

United States v. Walters underscores the broad latitude district courts possess when imposing upward variances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). By upholding the 72-month sentence, the Tenth Circuit confirmed that a well-reasoned § 3553(a) analysis—addressing both offense conduct and defendant characteristics—satisfies the requirement to avoid unwarranted disparity and justifies a sentence above the advisory Guidelines range. This decision cements the principle that sentencing courts may re-examine aggravating factors already counted in the Guidelines so long as they provide a cogent explanation tailored to the unique facts of each case.