United States v. Simpson: Fourth Circuit Declines to Enforce Appeal Waiver Lacking Consideration; Reaffirms Reliability-Based Sentencing Findings and Temporal-Spatial Nexus for Firearm Enhancements

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Unpublished)

Date: October 17, 2025

Docket No.: 24-4160

Introduction

In United States v. Derrick Simpson, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a 336-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea to a cocaine-distribution conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. The appeal raised three procedural challenges: (1) a due process claim alleging the district court improperly curtailed Simpson’s ability to contest drug-quantity findings and a “use of a minor” enhancement; (2) a challenge to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon; and (3) an argument that the district court failed to address a nonfrivolous disparity-based request for a downward variance.

A notable threshold issue concerned the enforceability of Simpson’s appeal waiver. The Government initially moved to dismiss based on the waiver but—after the court ordered supplemental briefing on whether consideration is required to support an appeal waiver—conceded that Simpson’s waiver lacked consideration and asked the court to reach the merits. The court did so and affirmed.

Although unpublished and thus nonbinding, the opinion is significant in two respects. First, it underscores that, consistent with contract principles governing plea agreements, the Government’s own concession that an appeal waiver lacks consideration can lead the court to decline enforcement. Second, it robustly applies established sentencing principles: a district court may rely on hearsay with sufficient indicia of reliability; the firearm enhancement turns on a temporal-spatial nexus rather than “gun-in-hand” simultaneity; and district courts may briefly but adequately dispose of JSIN-based disparity arguments where the proponent fails to show case-specific comparability.

Summary of the Opinion

Appeal waiver: The court ordered supplemental briefing on whether consideration is required to support an appeal waiver. The Government conceded the absence of consideration for Simpson’s waiver and requested denial of its own motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit denied the motion and reached the merits.
Due process and reliability of sentencing evidence: The court held there was no due process violation. The district court permissibly relied on coconspirator statements in the PSR regarding drug quantity and on testimony supporting a “use of a minor” enhancement because those sources bore sufficient indicia of reliability and were corroborated by law enforcement and seizures. Simpson had multiple opportunities to object in writing and at the hearing.
Firearm enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(1)): Affirmed. The firearm was readily accessible under the driver’s seat as Simpson drove to a drug transaction, establishing a temporal and spatial nexus. The enhancement applies where the weapon was present unless it is clearly improbable that it was connected to the offense.
Sentencing explanation and disparity: The district court conducted an individualized assessment under § 3553(a), addressed the seriousness of the offense, Simpson’s role and criminal history, and explained why a below-Guidelines sentence would undermine statutory purposes. It acknowledged and rejected the JSIN-based disparity argument because counsel did not show its relevance to Simpson’s case. The explanation, though not extensive, was adequate.

Disposition: Motion to dismiss denied; sentence affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Established the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences. The Fourth Circuit applied Gall to frame its procedural reasonableness review.
United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2020): Clarifies that a district court must consider § 3553(a) factors and explain its sentence. The panel relied on Nance to assess whether the explanation sufficed and whether nonfrivolous arguments were addressed.
United States v. Mondragon, 860 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2017): Two major points flow from Mondragon: (a) courts may consider hearsay at sentencing if it has sufficient indicia of reliability; and (b) the firearm enhancement requires only proof of presence via a temporal-spatial nexus, not simultaneous handling of gun and drugs. Both points were central to rejecting Simpson’s due process and firearm arguments.
United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2014): District courts’ reliability determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The panel used this standard to uphold reliance on PSR and testimony.
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2011): Drug quantity must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing. Applied to sustain the base offense level grounded in PSR-sourced drug weight.
United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011): Sentencing evidence must have “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” Cited to explain why coconspirator statements corroborated by law enforcement and seizures can support drug-quantity findings.
United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2011): Sets clear-error review for firearm enhancement fact findings and affirms that possession “in connection with drug activity” in the same course of conduct suffices. The panel relied on Slade’s framework to affirm the enhancement given the accessible firearm and ongoing drug transaction.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010): Ready accessibility of a firearm (e.g., under a car seat) supports § 2D1.1(b)(1). The opinion invokes Manigan by citation and reasoning to uphold the nexus.
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019): Requires district courts to address nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence. This informed the panel’s review of the court’s response to the JSIN-based disparity claim.
United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773 (4th Cir. 2020): The explanation can be succinct if it shows individualized assessment and responds to defense arguments. Used to hold that a brief rejection of a poorly supported JSIN disparity argument was sufficient.

Legal Reasoning

1) Appeal Waiver and Consideration

The panel flagged, sua sponte, a foundational contract-law concern: whether an appeal waiver in a plea agreement must be supported by consideration to be enforceable. Plea agreements are construed under ordinary contract principles, and an appeal waiver is a bargained-for term. After ordering supplemental briefing, the Government conceded that Simpson’s appeal waiver lacked consideration and asked the court to decide the appeal on the merits. The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss and proceeded to adjudicate Simpson’s claims.

Importantly, the panel did not issue a precedential holding resolving whether consideration is categorically required for appeal waivers; rather, it accepted the Government’s concession and moved forward. Still, the episode is instructive: where the Government acknowledges that no consideration supports a waiver, the Fourth Circuit is prepared to decline enforcement and reach the merits. Practically, prosecutors should ensure that an appeal waiver is anchored by demonstrable concessions (e.g., charge dismissals, recommendations, or other promises).

2) Due Process at Sentencing: Reliability of PSR and Testimony

Simpson asserted that the district court promised he could challenge witnesses’ statements at sentencing but then denied him a meaningful opportunity to do so, violating due process. He targeted two determinations: (a) drug quantity driving the base offense level, which he claimed relied on unverified PSR statements from coconspirators about meth distribution and money transport; and (b) the enhancement for use of a minor under § 2D1.1(b)(16)(B)(i).

The panel held there was no due process violation and no abuse of discretion:

Opportunity to be heard: Simpson had multiple avenues to object—PSR objections, a sentencing memorandum, and argument at the hearing. This satisfied due process’s notice-and-opportunity-to-respond baseline.
Reliability standard: Sentencing courts may rely on hearsay, including coconspirator statements, if the information bears sufficient indicia of reliability (Mondragon; Powell). The defendant bears an affirmative duty to show unreliability and explain why the PSR is incorrect (Mondragon).
Corroboration and seizures: The district court expressly found that coconspirator statements were corroborated by law enforcement and led to seizure of drugs and proceeds. Those findings supplied the necessary reliability and met the Government’s preponderance burden on drug quantity (Bell).
Use-of-a-minor enhancement: The court likewise found the testimony supporting § 2D1.1(b)(16)(B)(i) reliable. Given the same reliability framework and Simpson’s opportunity to contest, due process was satisfied.

3) Firearm Enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(1))

Simpson argued there was no sufficient nexus between him and the firearm. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, applying well-settled principles:

Standard: The enhancement applies if a weapon was present during the drug offense unless it is clearly improbable it was connected to the offense (USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A)). The Government need only show presence via a temporal and spatial relation among the weapon, drug activity, and defendant; it need not prove simultaneous handling (Mondragon).
Facts here: The firearm was readily accessible under the driver’s seat as Simpson drove to a drug transaction (Manigan). That accessibility and timing established the requisite nexus. The district court’s finding that the firearm was possessed in connection with drug activity in the same course of conduct as the conviction offense (Slade) was not clearly erroneous.

4) Sentencing Explanation and Disparity (§ 3553(a)(6))

Simpson contended that the district court failed to address his nonfrivolous argument for a downward variance based on JSIN statistics showing purported disparities for similarly situated defendants. The panel affirmed the adequacy of the explanation:

Individualized assessment: The district court thoroughly discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense (quantity, firearm, central role), Simpson’s history (including a prior nearly nine-year sentence for armed robbery and recidivism concerns), and the need for deterrence, protection of the public, and just punishment.
JSIN-based argument: The court acknowledged but rejected the JSIN argument because defense counsel did not explain how the cited statistics were relevant or comparable to Simpson’s case. It noted the “apples-to-apples” challenge and found no unwarranted disparities. Under Lozano, the court’s brief, responsive explanation sufficed when the defense presentation lacked specificity and comparators.
Consistency with § 3553(a): The court explicitly found that a below-Guidelines sentence would undercut the statutory goals, especially in light of offense seriousness and public protection.

Impact and Practical Implications

Appeal waivers and consideration: Although not a precedential holding, the court’s insistence on briefing and its acceptance of the Government’s concession signal that consideration remains a live—and potentially dispositive—enforceability issue for appeal waivers. Prosecutors should document concrete concessions supporting any waiver; defense counsel should scrutinize whether consideration exists beyond bare promises to accept a plea.
PSR objections must be developed: Defendants must do more than lodge generalized objections to PSR assertions. Providing evidence, identifying internal inconsistencies, and undermining corroboration are critical. Where coconspirator statements are independently corroborated—particularly by seizures—reliability is likely to be found.
Firearm enhancement remains broad: The temporal-spatial nexus standard continues to be robust. Ready accessibility of a firearm en route to or during drug activity will ordinarily suffice. Defense strategies should focus on showing it is “clearly improbable” the weapon was connected to the offense (e.g., lawful unrelated purpose, temporal remoteness, lack of access), which is a high bar.
JSIN-based disparity arguments require rigor: Statistical tools like JSIN can be useful but are not self-executing. Counsel must explain comparability—offense conduct, role, criminal history, enhancements, and district-specific practices—to render JSIN persuasive. Courts may briefly reject inadequately contextualized statistics without committing procedural error.
Explanation sufficiency: The opinion reinforces that an explanation can be concise if it addresses the defendant’s particular characteristics and arguments within the § 3553(a) framework. Comprehensive written sentencing orders can complement oral remarks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal waiver: A defendant’s promise in a plea agreement not to appeal. Like a contract term, it is typically enforceable if entered knowingly and voluntarily and supported by consideration (value given in exchange). Here, the Government conceded consideration was lacking, so the court did not enforce the waiver.
Consideration: In contract law, something of value exchanged by each party. In plea agreements, examples include dismissing counts, agreeing to recommend a sentence, or other tangible concessions that support an appeal waiver.
PSR (Presentence Report): A report prepared by probation summarizing offense conduct, criminal history, and other factors relevant to sentencing. Courts may rely on it unless the defendant shows it is inaccurate or unreliable.
Hearsay at sentencing: Unlike at trial, sentencing courts may consider hearsay if it bears sufficient indicia of reliability—e.g., corroboration by independent evidence or consistency with known facts.
Preponderance of the evidence: The Government’s burden at sentencing to prove facts like drug quantity and enhancements—meaning “more likely than not,” a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Temporal-spatial nexus for firearm enhancement: To apply the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, the Government need show the weapon’s presence in time and space with the drug activity and the defendant; it need not prove the defendant had the gun in hand while dealing drugs.
JSIN (Judiciary Sentencing Information): A federal judiciary tool providing aggregate sentencing statistics. Useful but limited: without case-specific comparators, it may not establish an unwarranted disparity.
Procedural reasonableness: Focuses on the correctness of the process—Guidelines calculation, consideration of § 3553(a) factors, and adequacy of explanation—rather than the ultimate length of the sentence.

Conclusion

United States v. Simpson affirms the district court’s thorough and procedurally sound sentencing. The Fourth Circuit declined to enforce the appeal waiver after the Government conceded a lack of consideration, a noteworthy reminder that plea-based waivers are grounded in contract-law principles. On the merits, the court applied settled law to hold that: (1) hearsay statements in a PSR—when corroborated by law enforcement and seizures—bear sufficient indicia of reliability to support drug-quantity and use-of-a-minor enhancements; (2) the firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) turns on a temporal-spatial nexus and is satisfied by a readily accessible weapon en route to a drug deal; and (3) district courts may briefly but adequately reject JSIN-based disparity arguments when defendants fail to demonstrate meaningful comparability.

The key takeaways are practical. Prosecutors should ensure appeal waivers rest on concrete consideration; defense counsel should develop targeted evidentiary challenges to PSR assertions, anticipate the lenient hearsay regime at sentencing, and present rigorously contextualized statistical disparity arguments. District courts, for their part, remain on solid ground when relying on corroborated PSR information, applying the firearm nexus standard, and providing succinct, individualized explanations tethered to § 3553(a). Although unpublished, Simpson is a clear and useful application of established sentencing doctrine in the Fourth Circuit.