## Facts

- Arthur Payton had prior federal convictions for multiple bank robberies and committed four additional bank robberies in Michigan in his mid-40s.
- The robberies involved recruiting accomplices, providing disguises and materials, and directing execution of the offenses.
- The Presentence Investigation Report calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of about 210–262 months; the government recommended a within-Guidelines sentence.
- The district court adopted the Guidelines calculations but imposed a 540-month (45-year) sentence, roughly doubling the top of the range.
- Payton argued that a lengthy term was greater than necessary because recidivism risk decreases substantially with age; a 45-year sentence would keep him imprisoned until roughly age 91.
- Payton appealed, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance and the adequacy of the district court’s explanation under the sentencing factors.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s 45-year sentence—an extreme upward variance from the advisory Guidelines range—was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2. Whether the district court adequately explained the basis for the major upward variance and addressed Payton’s nonfrivolous mitigation argument that aging reduces recidivism risk.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held the sentence was unreasonable because the district court’s justification did not sufficiently support such a major variance.
- The court found the district court did not meaningfully address Payton’s age-based recidivism argument when imposing what functioned as a near life sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of federal sentences considers both procedural and substantive reasonableness.
- A major variance from the advisory Guidelines range requires a significantly more convincing and detailed justification than a minor deviation.
- A sentencing court must address on the record nonfrivolous arguments raised by the defendant that bear on § 3553(a) factors.
- Evidence about declining recidivism with age can be relevant to § 3553(a), including protection of the public and the requirement that the sentence be sufficient but not greater than necessary.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit required a reasoned, record-based explanation to support an extreme upward variance and held that a sentencing court must confront material mitigation arguments—such as age-related reductions in recidivism risk—when imposing a term approaching a de facto life sentence.


United States v. Payton, 754 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2014)