UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBBIE JOSHUA CONVERSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00116-JRS-1)

Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. 

Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. 

Boente, United States Attorney, Michael R. Gill, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robbie Joshua Converse appeals the twenty-seven month 

sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised 

release. On appeal, Converse argues that his sentence is

plainly procedurally unreasonable because the district court 

failed to provide an adequate explanation for its chosen

sentence.*

 The Government concedes that the district court’s 

explanation was inadequate and that therefore the court erred, 

but argues that the error was harmless. We have fully 

considered the Government’s contentions and are unable to 

conclude that the absence of any explanation whatsoever for the 

court’s chosen sentence was harmless in this case. Accordingly, 

we vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Procedural sentencing error, including a failure to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence, is subject to review for 

harmless error. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576. “Under that standard, 

the government may avoid reversal only if it demonstrates that 

the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or 

influence on the result,” such that we “can say with fair 

assurance that the district court’s explicit consideration of 

 * Converse preserved his challenge to the adequacy of the 

district court’s explanation “[b]y drawing arguments from [18 

U.S.C.] § 3553 [(2012)] for a sentence different than the one 

ultimately imposed” by the district court. United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
3

the defendant’s arguments would not have affected the sentence 

imposed.” United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); 

see United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(noting that government bears burden to establish harmless 

error). Remand is appropriate when the absence of an 

explanation prevents us from “determin[ing] why the district 

court deemed the sentence it imposed appropriate” or “produce[s] 

a record insufficient to permit even . . . routine review for 

substantive reasonableness.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 582 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

We find the Government’s arguments unavailing. First, 

we conclude that the district court’s adoption of the parties’ 

requests for recommendations as to drug treatment and prison 

location did not satisfy the court’s obligation to explain its 

chosen sentence. United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 

(4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging that “in some cases, a district 

court’s reasons for imposing a within-range sentence may be 

clear from context,” but concluding that “those other statements 

must actually relate to the imposed sentence, not some distinct, 

penological or administrative question”). Nor does the fact 

that the court made those recommendations mean that it also 

considered the parties’ arguments for variant sentences. 
4

Second, and contrary to the Government’s suggestion, 

our precedents make clear that district courts are not exempted

from the explanation requirement when they reject a motion for a 

variant sentence in favor of a sentence within the advisory 

policy statement range. Rather, the Government’s and Converse’s 

arguments “for imposing a different sentence than that set forth 

in the advisory Guidelines” established the court’s duty to 

“address the part[ies’] arguments and explain why [it] has 

rejected those arguments.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Third, we reject the Government’s contention that the 

lack of complexity of the parties’ arguments and the apparent 

egregiousness of Converse’s violations render the court’s 

failure to offer any explanation at all for its chosen sentence 

harmless. Both parties thought Converse’s circumstances 

sufficiently unique to urge upon the district court imposition 

of a variant sentence from the advisory policy statement range. 

Moreover, while the district court could have explained on the 

record that it had considered and rejected Converse’s claims of 

sincere remorse and specifically found that his violations were 

egregious, it did not do so, and we decline to speculate on the 

reasons for the court’s sentence. Id. at 329-30 (“[A]n 

appellate court may not guess at the district court’s 

rationale.”). 
5

The district court’s explanation of its revocation 

sentence need not have been extensive or exhaustive, but the 

omission of any statement of reasons for its actions cannot 

suffice. Accordingly, being mindful that a sufficient 

explanation is necessary “to promote the perception of fair 

sentencing” and “to allow for meaningful appellate review,” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007), we vacate the 

judgment and remand for resentencing. In so ordering, of 

course, we express no view as to the substantive reasonableness 

of the vacated sentence. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED