United States v. Benton: Clarifying Harmless-Error Review When Sentencing Courts Omit Discussion of Mitigating Arguments

1. Introduction

United States v. Cedric Lee Benton, Nos. 24-4029/4030 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025) is an unpublished but highly instructive decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The panel—Chief Judge Diaz writing for Judges Wynn and Benjamin—affirms consecutive sentences imposed on Cedric Benton for (i) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) wire-fraud offenses and (ii) violations of supervised release stemming from a 2007 drug-conspiracy conviction. Although Benton alleged procedural error because the district court failed to respond expressly to several mitigating arguments, the Fourth Circuit found any such omission to be harmless.

The case thus crystallises an important refinement of the harmless-error doctrine in federal sentencing: an appellate court may uphold a sentence where mitigating arguments went unaddressed if, on the record, it can say with “fair assurance” that explicit consideration would not have altered the outcome.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Benton appealed two aspects of his punishment imposed by the Western District of North Carolina:

Fraud sentence. 32 months (an upward variance to Criminal History Category VI) for wire-fraud-related convictions tied to fraudulent PPP loan applications totaling $41,666.
Revocation sentence. 34 months (within-Guidelines) for supervised-release violations, imposed consecutive to the fraud term.

He contended that the district court (i) did not meaningfully discuss his mitigating points—e.g., limited role in the conspiracy, caregiving responsibilities, substance-abuse issues, and potential sentence disparities—and (ii) therefore imposed procedurally unreasonable sentences.

Assuming arguendo that the sentencing court committed a procedural error, the Fourth Circuit held the error harmless because (a) Benton’s proffered mitigating points were comparatively weak, and (b) the district court’s stated reasons, anchored in the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, convincingly demonstrated that the same sentences would have been imposed. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2020) – Reiterates the duty to create an “individualized assessment” and address non-frivolous arguments. Benton relied on this to claim procedural unreasonableness.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) – Establishes that procedural errors at sentencing are subject to harmless-error review.
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) – Provides the “fair assurance” standard for harmlessness when mitigating arguments are overlooked; the Benton panel leaned heavily on this framework.
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) – Defines “substantial or injurious effect” for harmless-error analysis.
United States v. Bourque, 2023 WL 2158367 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2023) – Illustrates that weak mitigating arguments, dwarfed by aggravating factors, render any explanatory lapse harmless.
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018) – Allows sentencing explanations to be inferred from context; cited to show that an express statement of every consideration is unnecessary.
Esteras v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 2031 (2025) – Limits the purposes a court may consider upon revocation (no retribution). The panel confirmed the district court complied, focusing on deterrence and public protection.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeds in two stages:

Identify possible procedural error. Failure to respond to Benton's mitigating claims could violate the Webb obligation. The Court assumed, without deciding, that such an error occurred.
Apply harmless-error test (Lynn/Boulware). The Government must show “with fair assurance” that explicit engagement with the mitigating arguments would not have changed the sentence. The panel found that standard met because:
- The sentencing court thoroughly discussed the “extremely serious” nature of PPP fraud—fraud “upon fraud,” committed shortly after early release under the First Step Act.
- Benton’s criminal history, though technically Category II, was “staggering” and “under-represented.” The court justified an upward variance to Category VI.
- Mitigating points (limited role, young child, grief, substance abuse) were weak relative to the need for deterrence and public protection.
- Even the elevated 32-month fraud sentence was deemed not adequate to safeguard the public, signaling that lesser terms were never plausible.

3.3 Impact and Future Significance

Although unpublished and thus non-precedential, Benton is persuasive authority in the Fourth Circuit and beyond in three key respects:

Solidifies Boulware’s “fair assurance” gloss. Appellate courts may sustain a sentence despite omitted discussion of mitigating contentions when (a) the record is clear, and (b) mitigating points are insignificantly weighty compared with aggravating factors.
Reinforces discretion to vary upward based on under-represented criminal history. Benton's jump to Category VI, justified by aged-out convictions, underscores district courts’ leeway post-Gall and Kimbrough to ensure sentences reflect recidivist realities.
Provides post-Esteras guidance. The opinion demonstrates compliance with Esteras: revocation focused on breach of trust and forward-looking aims, not retribution.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness: A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court followed correct steps (e.g., considered § 3553(a)); it is substantively reasonable if the length itself is fair. Benton only challenged procedure.
Harmless-Error Review: Even when a trial court errs, an appellate court can affirm if convinced the error had no impact on the outcome.
Upward Variance vs. Departure: A departure uses Guideline-specific mechanisms; a variance relies on § 3553(a) to move outside the range. Here, the judge “varied” upward by recalibrating criminal-history weight.
Supervised Release Revocation: When a defendant violates release conditions, a court may impose additional imprisonment, guided by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)—with limited purposes (deterrence, public protection, rehabilitation) after Esteras.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Benton is a cautionary tale for defense counsel and a roadmap for district judges: omissions in addressing mitigation do not guarantee reversal if the record already demonstrates that statutory objectives dictate a higher sentence. The decision deepens the Fourth Circuit’s articulation of harmless-error review and showcases judicial flexibility to safeguard the public from recidivists whose criminal history is masked by formal Guidelines calculations. Even in its unpublished form, the opinion offers potent guidance for navigating sentencing appeals where the central grievance is the district court’s silence rather than its reasoning.