## Facts

- Gary Roberson and three accomplices committed an armed bank robbery, taking about $133,000; Roberson received about $50,000.
- During the robbery, an accomplice brandished a firearm; it was unclear whether Roberson personally carried a gun.
- Roberson pleaded guilty to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and to using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- Brandishing under § 924(c) required a mandatory minimum 84-month term, consecutive to any other sentence.
- The district court imposed 1 month on the robbery count and 84 months on the § 924(c) count, consecutive, for a total of 85 months.
- The district court explained it reduced the robbery sentence to offset what it viewed as an excessive combined punishment under § 3553(a).
- The government appealed, arguing the total sentence was unreasonably low and effectively nullified Congress’s mandatory consecutive punishment for firearm use.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may reduce the sentence for the predicate offense to counterbalance § 924(c)’s mandatory consecutive minimum and reach a total punishment the court considers “reasonable.”
2. Whether, for § 924(c), a defendant may be held liable based on a confederate’s firearm brandishing when firearm use was reasonably foreseeable in the jointly undertaken bank robbery.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held the district court could not use § 3553(a) to effectively negate § 924(c)’s mandatory consecutive minimum by drastically lowering the predicate-offense sentence.
- The court concluded the 85-month total sentence was substantively unreasonable because it reflected disagreement with Congress’s statutory scheme rather than a permissible individualized sentencing judgment.
- The court recognized that § 924(c) liability can rest on reasonably foreseeable firearm use by accomplices in the course of the criminal venture.

## Legal Principles

- Post-*Booker*, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, but statutory mandatory minimums remain binding on sentencing courts.
- A sentencing court may not circumvent a mandatory consecutive minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by reducing the sentence for the underlying offense to “absorb” or offset the firearm add-on.
- Reasonableness review does not permit a district court to reallocate punishment in a way that defeats Congress’s requirement of additional consecutive punishment for firearm use in crimes of violence.
- Under *Pinkerton*-type principles, a defendant may be responsible for reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by accomplices in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, including foreseeable firearm use, whether or not conspiracy is formally charged.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that sentencing discretion under § 3553(a) cannot be used to neutralize § 924(c)’s mandatory consecutive minimum by sharply reducing the predicate offense sentence; because the district court’s 1-month robbery term effectively undercut the statutory scheme, the court vacated the 85-month sentence and remanded for resentencing.


United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007)