United States v. Benton: Fourth Circuit Re-tools Harmless-Error Review for Unaddressed Mitigating Arguments at Sentencing

1. Introduction

In United States v. Cedric Lee Benton (Nos. 24-4029 & 24-4030, 4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025), the Fourth Circuit affirmed consecutive sentences imposed for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) fraud and supervised-release violations despite the defendant’s claim that the district court failed to confront several mitigating arguments.

The appeal presented two core issues:

1. Whether the sentencing court procedurally erred by not expressly addressing Benton's non-frivolous mitigating contentions; and
2. If error occurred, whether such error required vacatur or could be deemed harmless.

Chief Judge Diaz, writing for a unanimous panel, assumed arguendo that the sentencing judge committed procedural error but held that any error was harmless. In doing so, the panel sharpened the contours of harmless-error review within the Fourth Circuit, effectively announcing that a defendant must now show more than a technical omission—he must demonstrate a realistic probability that the sentence would have been different had each mitigating point been expressly discussed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals:

• Acknowledged—but did not definitively decide—that the district court may have failed to address several specific mitigation arguments (low-level role, family circumstances, substance-abuse treatment, sentencing disparity).
• Held that any such failure was harmless because the written and oral record demonstrated that the sentencing judge considered the § 3553(a) factors in depth and that Benton's mitigation points were comparatively weak when weighed against his extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offenses.
• Affirmed the upwardly variant 32-month concurrent sentences on the three fraud counts and the consecutive 34-month revocation sentence.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2020) – Confirmed that an abuse-of-discretion standard governs sentencing appeals.
• United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) – Established that procedural sentencing errors are reviewed for harmlessness.
• United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) – Provided the “fair assurance” formulation: an error is harmless if the court can say with fair assurance that explicit consideration of the overlooked argument would not have changed the sentence.
• United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) – Clarified that an error must have a substantial or injurious effect to warrant reversal.
• Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018) – Permitted courts to rely on prior materials and combined hearings as evidence of consideration of arguments even where explicit discussion is sparse.
• Esteras v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 2031 (2025) – Limited permissible factors at supervised-release revocations to the forward-looking ends of sentencing; the panel found no Esteras violation.
• Miscellaneous unpublished cases (Bourque, Barefield) – Offered examples where weak mitigation arguments rendered any procedural error harmless.

By synthesising these authorities, the panel articulated a robust, precedent-backed framework: when addressing alleged procedural error, the appellate court may (i) assume error, (ii) weigh the strength of overlooked arguments, (iii) measure them against the district court’s stated rationale, and (iv) affirm if the government carries the burden of showing harmlessness under the fair assurance test.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Assumption of Error: The panel deliberately sidestepped a definitive ruling on whether the district court’s silence amounted to error, instead treating it as error for purposes of analysis.
2. Harmless-Error Framework: Borrowing heavily from Boulware, the court required the government to demonstrate that explicit discussion of each mitigating point would not have altered the sentence.
3. Assessment of Mitigating Arguments:
   • Minor Role: Deemed factually unconvincing due to the defendant’s active certification of false PPP information.
   • Young Child & Familial Hardship: Lacked evidentiary support and was outweighed by public-safety considerations.
   • Sentencing Disparity: Found to be inapposite because the comparator received a revocation, not a substantive fraud sentence.
   • Substance-Abuse Treatment: Court explicitly recommended BOP programs, showing the argument was in fact considered.
4. Weight of Aggravating Factors: The sentencing judge’s extensive comments on Benton's “staggering” criminal history, breach of public trust, and “fraud upon fraud” overwhelmingly supported the imposed sentences.

3.3 Practical and Doctrinal Impact

The decision tightens the application of harmless-error review in three significant ways:

1. Raised Threshold for Reversal: Defendants must now show not merely that the judge failed to respond but that the argument’s acceptance could plausibly have changed the sentence.
2. Encourages Comprehensive Record-Building: Defense counsel who wish to preserve issues must supply concrete evidence—not just assertions—of mitigating factors; otherwise, the arguments will be labelled “weak.”
3. Affirms Upward Variance Latitude: The panel implicitly blesses the practice of varying upward via a “criminal history category substitution” when the guidelines fail to capture the seriousness of past conduct.

Broader ripple effects may include:

• More appellate affirmances where sentencing judges provide at least a topline reference to § 3553(a) and the presentence report;
• Strategic emphasis by district judges on developing a thorough record to pre-empt procedural challenges;
• Tighter integration of First Step Act resentencing considerations (e.g., aged-out criminal history) with current conduct evaluations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Paycheck Protection Program (PPP): A COVID-19 relief initiative offering forgivable loans to small businesses to keep employees on payroll. Fraud occurs when applicants misrepresent eligibility, revenue, or employee numbers.
• Supervised Release: A period of community supervision following imprisonment, analogous to parole. Violations (e.g., criminal conduct, failed drug tests) can lead to revocation and additional prison time.
• Harmless Error: A legal principle under which an appellate court affirms a judgment despite procedural mistakes if it believes the outcome would have been the same absent the error.
• § 3553(a) Factors: Statutory criteria guiding federal sentencing—seriousness of the offense, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation, among others.
• Upward Variance: When a court imposes a sentence above the recommended guideline range based on statutory factors.
• Criminal History “Aging Out”: Older convictions sometimes lose guideline points after a specified number of years, potentially understating a defendant's past misconduct.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Benton fortifies the doctrine that not every procedural misstep warrants resentencing. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion underscores that:

1. Harmless-error review remains a potent barrier to relief on appeal when the record reflects robust consideration of § 3553(a) factors;
2. Mitigation arguments lacking factual heft or nexus to the statutory factors are unlikely to overturn upward variances;
3. District courts retain broad discretion to vary upward—particularly to “re-capture” underrepresented criminal histories—and to impose consecutive revocation sentences when warranted.

Ultimately, Benton signals a pragmatic, outcome-oriented approach: appellate courts will look past technical omissions if the sentencing rationale is clear, cogent, and firmly anchored in the statutory framework.