CHARLESTON – A district judge has issued a scathing rebuke of how appellate courts lord over federal judges when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
In an April 24 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin resentenced Tytus Shields to 51 months to be served consecutively with a state sentence as well as three years of supervised release. That’s the same sentence Goodwin handed down to Shields in 2023.
Shields pled guilty in 2022 to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He had previous felony convictions for several drug offenses in Ohio.
Shields appealed the original sentence, and the Fourth Circuit vacated it January 22, 2025, and remanded it so Goodwin could “address,” “acknowledge” and engage” with Shields’ argument for a downward variance based on the idea that his base offense level would be lower if he had been convicted of prior conduct in West Virginia rather than Ohio.
Goodwin says the 51-month original sentence “was reasonable and appropriate” in light of Shields’ other criminal conduct for which he would be serving a long consecutive sentence in state custody.
The Fourth Circuit said Goodwin failed to “adequately address Shields’ argument and explain the sentence imposed,” adding Goodwin did not “address or even acknowledge Shields’ equitable argument.”
“I now write in conjunction with that resentencing to consider the state of appellate review of district court sentencing,” Goodwin wrote in his 11-page opinion. “It is the duty of the district court to follow appellate court orders in sure fashion and explain their actions and reactions.
“The public greatly benefits from courts acting in such a manner clearly communicating what the law is and how it is applied.”
Goodwin says Shields’ case is one in a long line of Fourth Circuit cases requiring district courts to address a defendant’s arguments “one-by-one, name-by-name.”
“These cases effectively force district courts to abide by a checklist sentencing script,” Goodwin wrote. “Concerning, however, is the Supreme Court jurisprudence upon which these cases rely. Under that jurisprudence, district courts are not obligated to conduct formulaic sentencings.”
Goodwin says sentencing historically was “almost entirely a matter left to the district court.”
“This makes sense,” he wrote. “The sentencing judge is actually in the room and has presided over the case to its conclusion. Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted … it has ‘never doubted the authority of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a statutory range.’”
Goodwin says that discretion was taken away from district courts with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the ensuing United States Sentencing Guidelines.
“Not only did the district courts lose their discretion to faithfully and particularly administer justice on a case-by-case basis, but also a bureaucracy formed to micromanage sentencing judges,” Goodwin wrote. “At the same time, appellate courts were empowered to review sentences and write ‘between the lines’ set out by the Sentencing Commission.
“That grand experiment to standardize sentences across the country collapses, and the Supreme Court finally returned sentencing guidelines back to the district courts in Booker.”
In the 2005 Booker ruling, the Supreme Court said sentencing judges must “consider guidelines ranges” while also tailoring “the sentence in light of other statutory concerns.” It also allowed appellate courts to retain the ability to review sentences under a “reasonableness” standard.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in part, saying the ruling would “wreak havoc on federal district and appellate courts quite needlessly and for the indefinite future.”
Two years later in its Rita ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the steps an appellate court must take in reviewing a sentence.
“These cases – while fine-tuning appellate review – emphasized the importance of the district court’s discretion,” Goodwin wrote.
Now, Goodwin says Scalia’s fears “have come to pass.”
“Particularly, I fear that Justice Scalia’s prediction that ‘appellate review for “unreasonableness” (will) preserve de facto mandatory guidelines by discouraging district courts from sentencing outside guideline ranges’ has come true,” Goodwin wrote. “Often, from the bench, I have commented that probation, the government and defendants usually ask for guidelines range sentences.
“Whether it is top of the guidelines, bottom of the guidelines or somewhere in between, the requests and recommendations look the same: a feverish commitment to the advisory guidelines. This coordinated effort is exactly why I always consider each defendant in his own individual circumstances.”
Goodwin says appellate courts have undermined Congress’s intent to standardize sentencing practices in the search for “reasonable” sentences.”
“Without a doubt, Justice Scalia’s fears came true,” Goodwin wrote. “The appellate courts – in an effort to enforce Supreme Court sentencing jurisprudence – have developed their own requirements, differently, across the country. The Fourth Circuit was not left untouched.”
In conclusion, Goodwin says justice and fairness are not to be found in a mechanical sentencing regime.
“Nor would the defendant or the public benefit from such a rigid hearing,” he wrote. “That is why I make an individualized assessment of every criminal defendant, from the beginning of his case to the end. This is informed by every argument in every sentencing memorandum, every argument at the hearing, the pre-sentence report, the observed demeanor of the defendant and the nature and characteristics of his offense.
“These matters often appear separately, obvious to me but sometimes scattered in the record. A carefully considered, individualized assessment does not fit nearly in a checkbox.”
Goodwin says judges feel a deep responsibility that is inherent in handing down a sentence.
“The decision is always exceptionally personal,” Goodwin wrote. “There is no joy in stripping away a citizen’s freedoms. It must be done, however. Punishment for crimes committed is a necessary part of living in a civilized society.”
He also says the judge’s role in this is “a great responsibility that cannot be taken lightly.”
“Every sentence is tailored to the defendant who stands before the court,” Goodwin wrote. “We are empowered to conduct personalized assessments of each criminal defendant. As we always have. As we always will.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 2:21-cr-268