Two recent federal circuit reversals highlight importance of sentencing explanations

In this post way back in 2005 just over a week after the Supreme Court’s Booker ruling, I summarized a message sent out to federal district judges as saying “Always remember to show your work.”  That long-ago post came to mind two decades later when I recently saw two distinct new federal circuit rulings in which panels reversed a sentence as procedurally unreasonable because of the sentencing court’s failure to adequately explain its sentencing decision-making.  Here are the rulings and their introductions:

US v. Vázquez-Narvaez, No. 23-1963  (1st Cir. April 9, 2025) (available here):

Defendant Carlos Vázquez-Narvaez (“Vázquez”) pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). For that offense, the probation office calculated a guideline sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three months of imprisonment and five years to life of supervised release.  Although the district court agreed that the guideline range had been correctly calculated, it sentenced Vázquez to time served — twenty-one days — and seven years of supervised release.  The government now appeals, arguing that this sentence is substantively unreasonable because it lacks a plausible sentencing rationale. Concluding that the district court did not adequately explain its basis for granting such an extraordinary downward variance, we vacate and remand for resentencing.

US v. Smith, No. 22-4338 (4th Cir. April 14, 2025) (available here):

Quamaine Donell Smith (“Appellant”) pled guilty to robbery and using/brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. In his written plea agreement, Appellant waived his right to appeal his sentence. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to 144 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, Appellant argues that his appeal waiver is invalid because the district court failed to properly conduct the plea hearing and because the appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary. Therefore, Appellant urges us to vacate his sentence as procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to acknowledge his non-frivolous mitigation arguments or provide an explanation for the sentence.

We hold that Appellant’s appeal waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made and that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we vacate the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remand for reassignment to a different district court judge for further proceedings.

In recent years, I tend not to blog much (or even follow closely) federal sentencing appeals because so much of reasonableness review turns more on factual specifics than on broader legal matters.  (I cannot recall seeing any academic articles on the topic for years and years.)  Still, I find it encouraging to see that reasonableness review is doing some work.