Introduction
Rodriques Javaun Humphrey pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a machine gun, possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
The district court imposed 480 months’ imprisonment—285 months above the high end of the properly calculated aggregate advisory range. On appeal, Humphrey argued that the court incorrectly described Count 4’s Guidelines range as “60 months to life,” inadequately explained its use of consecutive sentences, and improperly weighed the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the oral description of Count 4’s range was plainly erroneous because U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b) fixed the Guideline sentence at the statutory minimum of 60 months. Nevertheless, the record showed that the court understood and relied on the correct range, so the mistake did not affect Humphrey’s substantial rights. The substantial upward variance and consecutive sentences were also adequately explained and substantively reasonable.
Summary of the Opinion
- The advisory range for Counts 1–3 was 108 to 135 months.
- Count 4 carried a Guideline sentence of 60 consecutive months, producing an aggregate advisory range of 168 to 195 months.
- The district court’s statement that Count 4 had a range of “60 months to life” was a plain Guidelines error.
- The error did not affect substantial rights because the presentence investigation report, the statement of reasons, and the sentencing discussion demonstrated reliance on the correct “108 to 135 months plus 60 months” calculation.
- The district court adequately explained why a 480-month sentence was warranted, including Humphrey’s firearm use, flight from and shooting at police, drug activity, and commission of the offenses while on bond for a pending homicide charge.
- The decision to impose consecutive sentences and a major upward variance fell within the district court’s discretion.
Analysis
1. The Count 4 Guidelines Error
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b) provides that, for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the Guideline sentence is the statutory minimum term. Because Humphrey’s offense carried a five-year minimum, Count 4’s Guideline sentence was exactly 60 months, to be served consecutively—not a Guidelines range extending from 60 months to life.
Because Humphrey did not object during sentencing, the court applied plain-error review. Although the oral statement was plainly wrong, Humphrey could not establish a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different without the mistake. Several parts of the record showed that the district court remained “tethered” to the correct calculation:
- The properly calculated Count 4 sentence appeared in the presentence investigation report.
- The district court adopted that report without changing Count 4’s calculation.
- Humphrey described the range at sentencing as 108 to 135 months “plus 60,” and the court did not dispute that description.
- The written statement of reasons expressly listed 108 to 135 months for Counts 1–3 plus 60 consecutive months for Count 4.
- The court identified the ultimate sentence as an upward variance based on § 3553(a), rather than as a sentence within the incorrectly stated range.
The opinion therefore distinguishes an isolated oral misstatement from an error that actually anchors or influences the sentencing decision.
2. Explanation for Consecutive Sentences
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, district courts generally may decide whether multiple terms will run concurrently or consecutively. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c)–(d) provides guidance for assembling sentences on multiple counts, while § 3584(b) requires consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.
The Eleventh Circuit found that the district court’s explanation applied to the complete sentencing package, including the decision to run Counts 1–3 consecutively and to impose 240 consecutive months on Count 4. A separate count-by-count explanation was unnecessary because the court’s overall reasons were sufficiently clear from the record.
3. Substantive Reasonableness of the Upward Variance
The 480-month sentence represented an unusually large upward variance, but a sentence outside the Guidelines is not presumptively unreasonable. The district court emphasized:
- Humphrey was on bond for a pending homicide prosecution when he committed the federal offenses.
- He continued carrying and using firearms.
- He fled and fired at police officers.
- He acknowledged having shot a person who died, although he claimed self-defense.
- He possessed a substantial quantity of drugs.
- A lengthy sentence was needed to protect the public and deter further criminal conduct.
These facts related directly to the nature of the offenses, Humphrey’s history and characteristics, deterrence, public protection, and respect for the law. The appellate court therefore found no clear error of judgment in the district court’s weighing of § 3553(a).
Precedents Cited
Guidelines Errors and Plain-Error Review
- United States v. Waters
- Established abuse-of-discretion review as the usual standard for procedural reasonableness.
- United States v. Trailer
- Identified procedural errors such as miscalculating the Guidelines, treating them as mandatory, relying on erroneous facts, or failing to explain the sentence.
- United States v. Leonard
- Supported de novo review of the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
- United States v. Brenes-Colon
- Required plain-error review where the defendant failed to preserve a procedural sentencing objection.
- United States v. Ramirez-Flores
- Supplied the four-part plain-error test: error, plainness, effect on substantial rights, and serious effect on the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Molina-Martinez v. United States
- Explained that an incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily establishes prejudice, but not where the record shows that the court would have imposed the same sentence for reasons independent of the mistaken range.
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States
- Recognized that a Guidelines error affecting substantial rights will ordinarily satisfy the fourth plain-error requirement.
- United States v. Thomas
- Held that a Guidelines miscalculation did not affect substantial rights where a large upward variance and the court’s independent reasoning demonstrated that the selected sentence did not depend on the erroneous range.
- United States v. Corbett
- Illustrated the opposite situation: resentencing was required where the district court’s variance remained tethered to an incorrect Guidelines calculation. Humphrey’s record instead showed reliance on the correct range.
Preservation and Appellate Presentation
- United States v. Campbell
- Provided that issues not properly raised in an appellant’s opening brief are ordinarily abandoned.
- United States v. Smith
- Explained that passing or perfunctory references unsupported by argument or authority do not adequately present a claim.
- Holguin-Hernandez v. United States
- Recognized that advocating for a shorter sentence generally preserves a substantive-reasonableness challenge.
Consecutive Sentences and Substantive Reasonableness
- Gall v. United States
- Required deferential abuse-of-discretion review and established that outside-Guidelines sentences are not presumptively unreasonable.
- United States v. Covington
- Confirmed abuse-of-discretion review for consecutive sentences and stated that, after considering § 3553(a), the resulting total sentence must be reasonable.
- United States v. Turner
- Applied abuse-of-discretion review to a claim that consecutive sentences were substantively unreasonable.
- Setser v. United States
- Recognized the sentencing court’s general authority to determine whether terms run concurrently or consecutively.
- United States v. Bradford
- Required consideration of the § 3553(a) factors when deciding whether to impose consecutive sentences.
- United States v. Bonilla
- Upheld consecutive sentences where the district court considered the Guidelines and § 3553(a) and gave a detailed explanation.
- United States v. Steiger
- Held that an unpreserved failure-to-explain claim warrants reversal only when the district court’s reasoning is unclear from the record.
- United States v. Irey
- Defined substantive unreasonableness as disregarding important factors, relying on improper factors, or making a clear error of judgment.
- United States v. Campa
- Provided the abuse-of-discretion formulation later quoted in United States v. Irey.
- United States v. Butler
- Confirmed that sentencing courts may give greater weight to one § 3553(a) factor than to others and need not discuss every mitigating fact.
- United States v. Keene
- Placed the burden of demonstrating substantive unreasonableness on the defendant.
- United States v. Shaw
- Required reasons sufficiently compelling to support the degree of variance and sufficiently complete to permit appellate review.
- United States v. Dougherty
- Demonstrated that a sentence substantially above the Guidelines may be reasonable when justified by offense seriousness, danger to the public, deterrence, and the defendant’s characteristics.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Guidelines range versus statutory range
- The statute establishes the legally permitted punishment. The Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentence within that statutory framework. Count 4 may have permitted imprisonment beyond five years, but its Guideline sentence was the five-year statutory minimum.
- Upward variance
- A sentence above the advisory Guidelines range based on the broader sentencing considerations in § 3553(a).
- Plain error
- A demanding standard used when no timely objection was made. Showing an obvious mistake is insufficient; the defendant must also show that it probably affected the outcome.
- Substantial rights
- In this context, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower without the error.
- Procedural versus substantive reasonableness
- Procedural review asks whether the court calculated and explained the sentence properly. Substantive review asks whether the final punishment was reasonably justified.
- Concurrent and consecutive sentences
- Concurrent terms are served at the same time. Consecutive terms are added together.
- “Tethered” to the Guidelines
- A sentence is tethered to a range when that range serves as the sentencing court’s starting point or anchor. Here, the record showed that the court used the correct range despite its isolated misstatement.
Impact
The opinion indicates that an isolated oral Guidelines misstatement will not automatically require resentencing. Appellate courts may examine the entire record—including the presentence report, sentencing colloquy, and statement of reasons—to determine whether the correct range actually controlled the decision.
The decision also reinforces the broad discretion available for consecutive sentences and major upward variances. A district court may impose a punishment far above the Guidelines when it gives case-specific reasons tied to § 3553(a), particularly public safety, deterrence, repeated firearm conduct, and the seriousness of the offense.
For defense counsel, the case underscores the importance of immediately objecting to an inaccurate Guidelines statement and clearly preserving challenges to the explanation, consecutive structure, and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Because the opinion is marked “Not for Publication,” it does not carry the same binding precedential force as a published Eleventh Circuit decision. Its analysis nevertheless offers persuasive guidance on plain-error prejudice and appellate review of substantial variances.
Conclusion
United States v. Rodriques Humphrey draws a critical distinction between making a Guidelines mistake and sentencing because of that mistake. Although the district court plainly misstated Count 4’s Guideline sentence, the surrounding record established that it used the correct calculation and independently selected 480 months under § 3553(a). The opinion consequently affirms both the consecutive sentencing structure and the substantial upward variance.