United States v. McCray: Clarifying the Scope of Sentencing Explanations When a Downward Variance Is Granted

Introduction

In United States v. Fredrick Wendell McCray, No. 24-4078 (4th Cir. June 25, 2025) (unpublished), the Fourth Circuit confronted a familiar but unsettled question in federal sentencing: How detailed must a district court’s explanation be when it grants a downward variance yet does not explicitly address every non-frivolous policy argument advanced by the defendant?

Mr. McCray pleaded guilty to a suite of narcotics and firearms offenses arising out of a large-scale trafficking operation in South Carolina. Although he faced an advisory range of 420 months to life as a career offender, the district court varied downward and imposed 360 months. On appeal he argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to engage directly with his request to “disregard” the career-offender guideline on policy and racial-disparity grounds. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the court’s explanation—viewed in context and accompanied by a substantial variance—satisfied its obligation to address non-frivolous arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Judges Heytens, Berner, and District Judge Hanes) applied the Gall abuse-of-discretion standard to review procedural reasonableness.
It concluded that the district court:

Correctly calculated the guideline range (including the career-offender enhancement);
Allowed the parties to present competing § 3553(a) arguments; and
Provided a context-specific explanation focusing on McCray’s history and characteristics and granting a 60-month variance.

Because the court “adequately considered the whole” of McCray’s presentation—including policy critiques of the career-offender guideline—no procedural error occurred.
The court distinguished United States v. Shields, 126 F.4th 356 (4th Cir. 2025), where a within-guidelines sentence was vacated for failing to address a disparity argument. Here, the variance itself evidenced careful consideration.
Minor misstatements referring to the Armed Career Criminal Act were deemed harmless “verbal scrivener’s errors.”
Judgment of the district court: Affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Provides the overarching “deferential abuse-of-discretion” framework and lays out procedural reasonableness requirements.
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) – Reiterates the duty to address non-frivolous arguments.
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) – Lists the four steps for a procedurally sound sentence.
United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020) – Stresses the need for an individualized assessment.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) & Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) – Warn courts not to leave reviewing courts “guessing,” yet recognize that brevity can suffice when context is clear.
United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167 (4th Cir. 2020) & Nance, 957 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2020) – Hold that judges need not address every “supporting data point.”
United States v. Shields, 126 F.4th 356 (4th Cir. 2025) – Recently vacated a sentence for failure to confront a key disparity argument; McCray draws a contrast.

The McCray panel synthesizes these authorities to crystallize a practical rule: where the district court: (1) acknowledges the defendant’s arguments, (2) grants a meaningful variance for stated § 3553(a) reasons, and (3) the contested guideline ultimately had no dispositive effect on the final sentence, the explanation—though concise—can withstand appellate scrutiny.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

Context-Sensitive Evaluation. The court repeated Gall’s instruction that “the context surrounding a district court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content.” By engaging McCray’s life history, accepting many of his mitigating points, and varying downward, the district court demonstrated it understood and weighed his policy criticisms.
Materiality of the Contested Argument. Unlike in Shields, where the sentencing disparity issue was central, McCray’s policy attack on the career-offender guideline was deemed “supplemental.” The primary thrust of the defense submission concerned personal history; therefore, a focused response on that ground sufficed.
Substantive Marker – The Variance Itself. The panel treated the 60-month reduction (indeed, a sentence even lower than the non-career-offender range) as empirical evidence that the judge considered and was not rigidly bound by the guideline in question.
Harmless Misstatements. Erroneous references to the Armed Career Criminal Act were interpreted as slips of the tongue or typographical errors, not indicative of confusion affecting the sentence.

Potential Impact on Future Cases

Sentencing Practice. District judges in the Fourth Circuit gain clearer assurance that a concise explanation may be adequate where they grant a substantial variance and signal consideration of the defendant’s points. The decision lowers the risk that oversights in expressly addressing every policy critique will trigger reversal.
Litigation Strategy. Defense counsel may rethink how vigorously to pursue generalized policy attacks on guidelines (e.g., racial-impact statistics) unless they make those arguments a central pillar. A footnote request to “disregard” a career-offender enhancement, without more, is unlikely to compel a point-by-point judicial rebuttal.
Career-Offender Jurisprudence. Although the opinion is unpublished, it embodies a growing circuit-level tolerance for district-court discretion to downplay the career-offender guideline while upholding sentences that do so without exhaustive commentary.
Appellate Review Scope. McCray strengthens a nuanced distinction: failure to discuss a material argument tied to the sentence’s core calculus (as in Shields) is reversible; omission regarding a supplemental argument can be cured where the record contextually reflects consideration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Career Offender (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1): A sentencing guideline that automatically elevates a defendant’s criminal-history category to VI and raises the offense level when the defendant (1) is 18 or older, (2) commits a felony drug or violent offense, and (3) has at least two prior qualifying felony convictions. Its practical effect is to lengthen the advisory sentence dramatically.
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA): A federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) that mandates a 15-year minimum for certain felons in possession of firearms with three qualifying prior convictions. It is distinct from the guideline § 4B1.1 career-offender designation, though the terms are sometimes confused.
Procedural Reasonableness: On appeal, a sentence can be vacated if the district court: miscalculates the guidelines, fails to allow argument, ignores § 3553(a) factors, or provides an inadequate explanation. Substantive reasonableness (whether the length of the sentence itself is fair) is reviewed separately.
§ 3553(a) Factors: Statutory considerations guiding sentencing: nature of the offense, defendant’s characteristics, need for deterrence, public protection, avoidance of unwarranted disparity, etc.
Downward Variance: When a judge imposes a sentence lower than the advisory guideline range based on § 3553(a) factors.

Conclusion

United States v. McCray reinforces a pragmatic principle: a district court’s duty to address non-frivolous sentencing arguments is contextual, not talismanic. Where the court demonstrates engagement by granting a substantial variance and articulating the core reasons driving that decision, it need not parse every subsidiary data point or policy critique on the record. The Fourth Circuit’s approach tempers the exacting standards set by earlier cases like Carter and Blue, offering trial judges a workable roadmap to “say enough”—but not necessarily everything—when justifying a sentence.

For practitioners, McCray underscores the importance of framing critical policy objections as central to the requested sentence if appellate review is sought. For judges, it affirms that holistic, individualized explanations—especially those coupled with meaningful variances—will usually withstand procedural-reasonableness challenges, even amid the continuing debate over the career-offender guideline and its disparate racial impact.