United States V Robert Strother

Robert Strother, while under post-release supervision for three state-law felonies involving firearms and assaults on police officers, shot a responding police officer during a 2020 residential 911 call. The next day, he approached a stranger, demanded his keys and phone, and shot him three times in the stomach, hand, and elbow before fleeing in the truck. Strother was arrested the following day after again pointing an AR-style rifle at police during an altercation. He pleaded guilty to three counts: (1) possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, (2) carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, and (3) discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The district court sentenced him to 720 months in prison, justifying the sentence through both upward departures and § 3553(a) variance reasoning.

The primary issue is whether the appellate court can affirm a sentence under the 'assumed error harmlessness' doctrine when the district court provides two independent justifications for deviating from the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court here based its 720-month sentence on both an upward departure under specific Guidelines provisions and an alternative variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court concluded that even if the departure rationale was legally flawed, the variance justification alone sufficiently supported the sentence, citing precedent like United States v. Evans and United States v. Hargrove. This case reaffirms that a sentence remains valid if at least one of the provided rationales is sound and substantively reasonable under applicable law.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the defendant's 720-month sentence because the district court provided two independent rationales for the sentence. Even if the district court erred in its upward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court's alternative justification based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors alone was sufficient to support the sentence. The appellate court concluded that the record showed abundant support for the § 3553(a)-based sentence, and the defendant's arguments against the Guidelines departure were irrelevant to the outcome.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's 720-month sentence for Robert Lee Strother, upholding the decision based on both Guidelines departure provisions and § 3553(a) factors, even if one rationale was flawed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's 720-month sentence for Robert Strother by applying the principle from United States v. Evans, which holds that appellate courts must uphold a sentence if it is supported by at least one valid rationale, even if another rationale (like a Guidelines departure) may be erroneous. The court emphasized that the district court’s alternative justification under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors alone provided sufficient basis for the upward variance, and the record demonstrated a thorough individualized assessment of the defendant’s circumstances.

United States Code